On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 11:38 PM, Arend van Spriel <arend@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 05/26/2012 12:51 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >>> It took a while. There were some discussions and we agreed that your >>> > changes establish a better integration with the regulatory framework. >>> > There are some concerns about the content of the crda database, but that >>> > is another thing outside the scope of your patches. >> BTW if you would like to address anything please let me know. If you'd like >> to review things in private too that's fine, just let me know. I >> should say that the staging area for the next generation regulatory >> code is being done through the regulatory simulator: >> >> git://github.com/mcgrof/regsim.git > > Thanks, Luis. I mainly focused on the crda database and it has a > relation freqs<->pwr_limit. In our regulatory code we make a distinction > between 11n and abg as we believe that is necessary. Atheros had similar poo. When I reviewed the architecture behind it, it was simply a design consideration, it had nothing to with regulatory. Nothing at all. In fact, all it did was add an overhead of data. > Another example > would be 20MHz transmission in 40MHz channel. Same thing here, turns out you can dynamically figure this out based on the regulatory rules. > Maybe that is taken into > account in crda code, but I did not have a close look at it yet. It is taken into account. In fact 802.11ac and 802.11ad are thing I've already have considered as well. > I will have a look at the regsim repository and follow up on that. Great! >> Arend, in the future please trim all hunks that are not relevant to >> your replies, that makes review easier. > > Will do. Thanks, 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
