> <emmanuel.grumbach@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Grumbach, Emmanuel > >><emmanuel.grumbach@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>>> country IL: > >>>>> (2402 - 2482 @ 40), (N/A, 20) > >>>>> + (5150 - 5250 @ 40). (N/A, 200 mW), NO-OUTDOOR > >>>>> + (5250 - 5350 @ 40). (N/A, 200 mW), NO-OUTDOOR, DFS > >>>> > >>>>I believe the one standing issue here is you are enabling HT40 on 5 > >>>>GHz, how about enabling 2.4 GHz first, and then through a separate > >>>>patch and time/review we review the HT40 stuff, unless you are in no > >>>>rush to get 2.4 GHz enabled. > >>>> > >>> > >>> I am not following... HT40 on 2.4 GHz is already enabled... > >>> What should I enable in 2.4 GHz ? > >> > >>Sorry I meant 5 GHz. > > > > Actually 40GHz is less a problem in 5GHz than in 2.4GHz since in 2.4GHz > > I need to have a "Coexistence mechanism", which is not required in 5GHz. > > This Coexistence mechanism is apparently implemented by one OEM under the > > name "Clear Channel Assessment (CCA)". > > > > In short, I don't think there is any special issue with 40MHz in 5GHz, but > > I may miss something here... In any case, I have no problem with sending > > a patch that allows 5GHz in 20MHz for the moment. > > I can also have a look at the EEPROM in our NICs which is supposed to have > > all the needed limitations. Details to follow tomorrow. > > OK thanks for the clarification Emmanuel, please give Michael some > time to review. > How much time ? :-) -- 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
