On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 17:19 -0400, John W. Linville wrote: > On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 11:15:57PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > > On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 16:35 -0400, John W. Linville wrote: > > > > > That doesn't sound like quite the correct behavior. If a channel is > > > excluded for regulatory reasons, then I suspect that should govern > > > everyone. But if one card just doesn't support a band, I don't see > > > why any other cards should be limited by that. > > > > > > Did I miss something? > > > > Well, the thing is that the iwlwifi drivers pretend to know the > > regulatory domain; thus when a single-band card registers the regulatory > > domain, it gets set to just a domain with the single band. > > Ah, now I see what this is about...thanks! > > Should there be an "I make no representation of authority" flag in > the regulatory maps? The only reasonable solution I can come up with is have it make separate hints for 2.4 and 5 GHz and then a single-band card won't say anything about 5 GHz so the dual-band gets to set that part. But OTOH I don't see a reasonable use-case for this whole thing so far---we really only added this after discussions with Marcel at OLS so embedded systems can function w/o crda, but who would build an embedded system with two different cards like that? johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
