On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 2008-05-29 at 16:35 +0800, Zhu Yi wrote: >> From: Emmanuel Grumbach <emmanuel.grumbach@xxxxxxxxx> >> >> This patch allows to disable FAT channel in specific configurations. >> >> For example the configuration (8, +1), (primary channel 8, extension >> channel 12) isn't permitted in U.S., but (8, -1), (primary channel 8, >> extension channel 4) is. When FAT channel configuration is not >> permitted, FAT channel should be reported as not supported in the >> capabilities of the HT IE in association request. And sssociation is >> performed on 20Mhz channel. > > Can you explain more in detail the underlying regulatory rules? > > It seems to me that (12, -1) would be pretty much the same as (8, +1) as > far as regulatory is concerned. Yes, just beacons will flows on 12 and not on 8 so from protocol point this is important (But this is not what is written in the comment we comparing (8,-1) to (8,+1) - Both are FAT channels - Beacons flow on 8 channel) I'm just thinking about how we should > express this in the regulatory database where we're not really concerned > with channels but rather allowed bands. > Not sure what do you mean, You always need to keep in mind channel, band tuple. Tomas -- 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
