On 11/6/2020 10:12 AM, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Fri, 2020-11-06 at 10:12 +0100, Arend Van Spriel wrote:On 11/6/2020 10:06 AM, Johannes Berg wrote: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 MHzHm. 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 ...Do you want to make that band: prefix required or optional.That's a good question. Probably should be optional, otherwise everything breaks ...
Right.
btw. starts to look like the format we use with our wl utility ;-)Hah! Maybe you have a better idea there? :)
Not really. The above format seems fine as is. Gr. AvS
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
