Hi Dan, On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:46, Dan Williams <dcbw@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 2012-02-10 at 11:26 +1100, Julian Calaby wrote: >> Hi Stanislav, >> >> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 12:23, Stanislav Yakovlev >> <stas.yakovlev@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > It's just a duplicate of ipw2100_bg_rates[]. >> >> Looks sensible to me. > > Except that the 2100 is a B-only device; it doesn't do G at all. So > wouldn't it make sense to get rid of ipw2100_rates_bg[] instead? The extra data in ipw2100_bg_rates[] is used when setting up the wiphy bands, ipw2100_rates_11b[] is just ipw2100_bg_rates[].bitrate * 100 * 1000. The cards may not support G, but that doesn't mean the structure can't be named as if they do. Looking at the driver, it seems that whoever wrote the band handling code just lumped B and G together and only used B rates. Thanks, -- Julian Calaby Email: julian.calaby@xxxxxxxxx Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/julian.calaby/ .Plan: http://sites.google.com/site/juliancalaby/ -- 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
