On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 9:09 AM, Kalle Valo <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 06/15/2012 02:06 PM, Arend van Spriel wrote: >> On 06/15/2012 10:21 AM, Kalle Valo wrote: >>> On 06/15/2012 11:16 AM, Johannes Berg wrote: >>>>> As for a name, I thought about it for a while and given that we have different >>>>>> "wireless" technologies -- bluetooth, NFC, naming this CONFIG_WIRELESS_EXPERT >>>>>> seemed odd, and given that our 802.11 framework is under cfg80211 naming it >>>>>> CONFIG_CFG80211_EXPERT seemed appropriate. But even if its under cfg80211 >>>>>> perhaps something more explicit about the implications may be better, how >>>>>> about CONFIG_CFG80211_MAY_BREAK_CERTIFICATION ? >>>> >>>> Or you could just be explicit about it and call it >>>> CONFIG_WIRELESS_REGULATORY_BREAKAGE or something like that :-) >>> >>> CONFIG_WIRELESS_CERTIFIED? >> >> That one looks familiar ;-) > > Sorry, did you suggest that already? I missed that. I guess I need to > start organising my email better :) We have CONFIG_ATH9K_DFS_CERTIFIED. I like something like CONFIG_CFG80211_MAY_BREAK_CERTIFICATION given that CONFIG_WIRELESS_CERTIFIED only assumes the kconfig options it would depend on are all neatly developed but they could be still under development. The only thing about CONFIG_CFG80211_MAY_BREAK_CERTIFICATION is I suspect not many folks would be willing to ship with that enabled at all even *after* they do their homework. So how about CONFIG_CFG80211_CERTIFICATION_ONUS which can be defined as an option for features / options whereby the onus for regulatory certification is being accepted by the option enabler? Pretty simple and to the point, and would allow for research code but also code whereby a bit more work is required on the enabler like DFS certification. 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
