On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Richard Farina <sidhayn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Johannes Berg wrote: >> >> On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 14:11 -0400, Richard Farina wrote: >> >> >>> >>> Yes, and at what point does it seem like a good idea to hide the channel >>> the wifi card is on? If I set channel 11 and it is scanning instead of >>> locked on channel 11 then I should see the current channel the hardware is >>> on. This seems like an aweful idea to me, granted, it may help a few people >>> that don't understand how scanning works, but hiding the truth is never a >>> good idea. NACK. >>> >> >> It's not really about hiding the truth. Besides, many many devices are >> _already_ "hiding the truth" (to use your words) because they do >> scanning in firmware and you never know what channel they're on (e.g. >> all Intel wireless hardware). >> >> I think it's completely pointless for us to reply to the question "what >> channel am I on" with the answer "currently the receiver is tuned to >> 132", when we can say "you're associated to a network on channel 11". >> >> > > And if the card claims to be associated but ends up stuck on another > channel? I can't see a good reason for this at all but if no one agrees > with me then it is well without your power to simply overrule me. > > I think it is an awful idea, and intel being broken isn't an excuse to break > everything else. If the card isn't on the right channel because of some > random failure this patch ensures there is no way to troubleshoot. If you > want to display current channel that is the hardware channel, if you want to > display "Channel the AP I'm associated to is on" then call it something > other than "Current Channel" > > My 0.02. Why not show both through iw and for wext just use whatever wext did for most devices? Luis -- 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
