On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 13:29 -0800, John W. Linville wrote: > On Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 08:49:50AM -0500, John W. Linville wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 05, 2008 at 11:17:22PM +0100, Marcel Holtmann wrote: > > > > >> This patch is related to bug 11870 at bugzilla.kernel.org. With > > >> correct regulatory information the number of channels to scan > > >> will be correct and not zero as seen in that bug. > > >> > > >> This patch eliminates the need for wireless to be compiled with > > >> CONFIG_WIRELESS_OLD_REGULATORY to get correct regulatory behavior with > > >> iwlwifi. > > > > > > so this is still for 2.6.28, but for 2.6.29 and wireless-testing the API > > > changed and we need a separate or different patch. > > > > > > John, Dave what is your take on pushing this to Linus this late in the > > > merge window? I personally think we should do that. And if not, then > > > change the Intel wireless Kconfig to select > > > CONFIG_WIRELESS_OLD_REGULATORY by default at least. > > > > CONFIG_WIRELESS_OLD_REGULATORY is already 'default y' now. I don't > > really see why iwlwifi should _require_ that if someone decides to > > choose a non-default configuration. > > In case this was unclear, I'm dropping these patches for 2.6.28. ok. > The original post said different patches are needed for -next anyway. The patches needed for -next was recently submitted by Luis (http://marc.info/?l=linux-wireless&m=122610969314498&w=2 ). Reinette -- 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
