> > > > Yes, I agree, As LiFi is not standardized yet we are using the > > existing wireless frameworks. For now, piggy backing with 2.4GHz is > > seamless for users. We will undertake band and other wider change once > > IEEE 802.11bb is standardized. > > I don't see why the IEEE standard needs to be final before adding the > band. Much better to add a band which is in draft stage compared to > giving false information to the user space. > I tend to agree, but looking at the current draft (D0.6), that's ... > vague? Maybe it's obvious to somebody familiar with the technology, but > I really don't understand how 800-1000nm infrared band maps to 21 MHz + > channel offset? Isn't the frequency there a couple hundred THz? > Regardless, if the channelisation plan says 21 MHz + n_ch * 5 MHz, then > I think we can just define NL80211_BAND_LC and the driver advertises > those channels - that even gets you easy access to all the defined > channels (apparently today all the odd channels from 1-61, split into > 20/40/80/160 MHz bandwidth). > I guess I'm really not sure how that maps to the actual infrared, but > reusing all the 20/40/80/160 machinery from VHT means we can actually do > a lot of things in mac80211/etc. without much changes, which isn't bad. > Anyway, I'd feel more comfortable defining an LC band here, even if it > potentially changes later. Or maybe especially if the actual channels > there change later. Thanks, I have submitted next version of the patch. I will study how to define NL80211_BAND_LC and other changes/tests required. I will also consider other points mentioned and will reply / update the patch (or send addional pathces). --Srini
