On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 5:31 AM, Arik Nemtsov <arik@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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? I would have not brought it up otherwise. > 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. You can keep all those bells and whistles provided you respect old userspace and old behavior first. > 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. I get it, its all fine but just address ensuring that old behavior is respected first, then you can add whatever on top of it. Luis -- 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
