On Fri, 2020-11-06 at 10:05 +0100, Arend Van Spriel wrote: > On 11/6/2020 9:55 AM, Johannes Berg wrote: > > On Fri, 2020-10-09 at 15:49 -0700, Pradeep Kumar Chitrapu wrote: > > > Channel numbers of 6G band overlaps with those of 2G or 5G bands. > > > Therefore, an optional argument "6G" is added and expected next > > > to channel number to map it to correct 6GHz frequency. If not > > > specified, defaults to matching 2G or 5G frequency. > > > > > > example: > > > iw wlanX set channel 149 6G 80MHz --> maps to 6695 MHz > > > iw wlanX set channel 149 80MHz --> maps to 5745 MHz > > > > Hm. I can't really say I like this much. > > > > Is it _really_ needed? I mean, we mostly specify the frequency today, so > > ... why not just always do that for 6 GHz? > > I suspect there are people preferring channel numbers as much as there > are people preferring frequencies. Personally, I think it is acceptable > to put this limitation on 6G. :) After I sent the message I figured maybe then we should have different syntax, where we say prefix the channel number by the band? iw wlanX set channel 6:149 ... iw wlanX set channel 5:149 ... iw wlanX set channel 2.4:11 ... or so? Seems better than having this optional argument '6G' in one place, and could be supported in a more general fashion. johannes
