On Wed, 2008-11-19 at 15:08 -0500, John W. Linville wrote: > > But positive dBm is not even possible to represnt right now. It is > > u8 and is displayed as ((s32)level - 256); so it is *always* > > negative. I would force dBm to be between -192 and 63. That would cover everything even remotely possible. > And what is your perspective regarding potential 'userland ABI' > issues of either this patch or of Pavel's suggestion? In my opinion, discrepancy between procfs and sysfs is permissible. If the sysfs interface has been wrong, we should be able to change the format. As for the procfs interface, it could be deprecated. -- Regards, Pavel Roskin -- 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
