On Mon, 2012-03-19 at 12:12 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Mon, 2012-03-19 at 16:02 +0530, Sujith Manoharan wrote: > > Johannes Berg wrote: > > > > 11.14.4.3 specifies that if the operating bandwidth has been changed by the AP > > > > to 20 MHz, then transmitting frames in an extension channel is not allowed ? > > > > > > Ok, good point. Paul's case was regulatory related, where we > > > (voluntarily) ceased 40 MHz transmissions. > > > > > > Still though, I think reconfiguring the channel type rather than the > > > rate control algorithm doesn't make a lot of sense in this case since > > > it'd make this very special and unlike the other cases (e.g. AP mode). > > > > The regulatory issue could have been fixed by sending out the action frame > > specified in 7.4.10.2, no ? > > Technically, but that would be assuming it's implemented everywhere ... > if it was tested by the WFA we'd implement it :-) Also, in order to actually implement it in AP mode we need to use the "RC update only". I think it makes more sense to unify the handling here -- change rate control (and also tell the driver, like one of my patches did) rather than treating 20/40 changes in managed mode differently than in AP mode. johannes -- 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
