On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 9:54 PM, Marcel Holtmann <holtmann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 > There is a similar effort going on in WiFi but it probably will take some time, till this regulator nonsense is removed Tomas -- 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
