Hi Luis, > >Since this is only for wiphys this seems reasonable. I just keep in the > >back of my mind leaving open the possibility for other wireless > >subsystems to be able to make use of the currently set regulatory domain > >and its regulatory rules, but this is in keeping with that as our > >current requests are not changing the regulatory definitions, and just > >as we have a wiphy for last_request we can add later struct > >foo_new_wireless_type there too. I am curious if band definitions > >should be shared between Bluetooth and 802.11 though. I don't think > >BT devices have any notion of regulatory though nor are they capable of > >exporting it though. Marcel is this correct? Inaky -- how about uwb, or > >WiMax? > > UWB swipes over all the bands (from 3.1 to 10.6G), but keeping emission below FCCp15 limits (-41dBm, if memory serves) so it looks as interference to others. All the channel assignments are fixed and known, so in theory, > it'd be possible to coordinate. and Bluetooth uses the full 2.4 GHz band (split into 79 channels) and it uses the full band equally and is allowed to. The regulatory efforts of the Bluetooth SIG made it possible to use this world-wide. No regulatory stuff is needed here. Bluetooth will also use UWB in the future in the range of 6 GHz and it will get the same world-wide regulatory effort. The only part I am not sure is Bluetooth over 802.11 since they have some weird stuff in there and the specification is not final yet. 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
