On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 12:28 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. I guess I'm waiting for some direction on what need to be changed. AFAICT, these flags don't hurt old userspace and/or new kernels using an old wireless-regdb. Can you propose a scenario where the new flags harm something older? Thanks, 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
