Hi Luis, > >> > While reading through it, I came to think about regulatory_hint(). So is > >> > there a use case where would give it the alpha2 code and the domain > >> > itself at the same time? If not, then it would make more sense to split > >> > this into two functions. > >> > >> Nope, you either pass an alpha2 or an rd domain which is built by you > >> (and in that rd structure you can set the alpha2 to your iso3166 > >> alpha2 or "99" if unknown). > >> > >> > Maybe something regulatory_alpha2_hint() and > >> > regulatory_domain_hint(). Just a thought. > >> > >> That's how I had it originally but decided to condense it to one > >> routine since as you could see they pretty much do the same thing > >> except the case where the rd is provided it calls set_regdom(). > >> Setting it back to use two routines if fine by me too. What is better? > >> Can we just get this merged and then we can flip it around if > >> necessary? :) I'm tired of carrying this around. > > > > my take on this is that if from an API perspective you can only use one > > parameter or the other, then it should be two functions. > > This is reasonable, I'll respin, yet once again... get an agreement with Johannes on the naming. Either _alpha2_hint() or _hint_alpha2(). Not sure what the others are preferring. Regards Marcel -- 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
