On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 13:17 -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote: > On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 18:29 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > > In some situations it is required that a system be > > configured with no support for 40 MHz channels in > > the 2.4 GHz band. Rather than imposing any such > > restrictions on everybody, allow configuration a > > system like that with a module parameter. It is > > writable at runtime but only takes effect at the > > time of the next association. > > That looks like a hack to me. > > Maybe it should be treated like other CRDA flags? In fact, you can find > this in dbparse.py in the wireless-regdb sources: > > # hole at bit 9. FIXME: Where is NO-HT40 defined? > 'NO-HT40': 1<<10, > > However, there are no other references to NO-HT40 in the wireless-regdb > or CRDA sources. I assume it's not implemented. It's not a regulatory requirement, it's a coexistence requirement. johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
