On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 2:25 AM, Arik Nemtsov <arik@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Why won't old regdb rules work? The NL80211_RRF_NO_160MHZ for instance >> is not used anywhere in old or new regdbs. >> So all the new code in reg_get_max_bandwidth is ignored in current or >> older crda/regdb flows. >> >> What am I missing? > > It will also be ignored on newer kernels using old wireless-regdb. Is that a problem? Note that the new flags don't permit more things, but only narrow down the range. So if VHT80 was blocked due to the range, it will still be blocked. Don't really see a reason to use them in newer regdbs either. Like you said - range only is more scalable. These flags are very useful for translating the Intel FW regulatory format to reg.c format. We don't have ranges there, only flags per channel. This allows for seamless interop, with per-channel rules. Regards, Arik -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
