Search Linux Wireless

Re: [PATCH 2/7] cfg80211: introduce regulatory flags controlling bw

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Janusz Dziedzic
<janusz.dziedzic@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 2014-06-11 7:24 GMT+02:00 Arik Nemtsov <arik@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>> 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?
>>
>
> The flag NL80211_RRF_NO_80MHZ could be usefull I think. eg to fix
> world regd veryfication issue we have:
>
> Current failing line:
> (2457 - 2482 @ 40), (20), NO-IR    --> 2482 - 2457 = 25 < 40
>
> Fixed line could be:
> (2457 - 2482 @ 40), (20), NO-IR, AUTO-BW, NO-80MHZ
>
> Without NO-80MHZ - AUTO-BW will setup BW=80MHz - I am not sure this is
> OK for 2.4?
> But setting NO-80MHZ and AUTO-BW flags we will get what expect?

Yea it should do the right thing. This is how Intel is using it.

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




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Host AP]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Wireless Personal Area Network]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Linux Kernel]     [IDE]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Hiking]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]

  Powered by Linux