On Wed, 2012-07-25 at 09:31 +0530, Mahesh Palivela wrote: > >>> Ok so HT has primary channel and secondary, and VHT has secondary VHT > >>> which can again be above/below? That would make sense, but you wouldn't > >>> be covering it. > >>> > >> > >> I am thinking no need of above/below convention as the center frequency > >> value itself we know. > > > > But we don't use the center frequency of the overall Ht40/80/160 > > channel, we always use the center frequency of the control channel. > > > > 11ac Draft3.0 section 22.3.14 says VHT channel is specified by > dot11CurrentChannelBandwidth, dot11CurrentChannelCenterFrequencyIndex0, > dot11CurrentChannelCenterFrequencyIndex1 and dot11CurrentPrimaryChannel > > primary channel comes from HT Op IE. > chanBW, chanCenterFreq0, chanCenterFreq1 comes from VHT Op IE. > So multiple secondary channels doesn't seem to be a valid? Hmm. But that means we have to specify the channel completely differently? I think we should stick to our scheme of center freq of a 20 MHz channel + surrounding bandwidth, though it obviously won't work for 80+80. The question will be where we deviate from our previous scheme. I tend to think that HT80+80 should deviate, I have a feeling it won't be implemented soon (or ever?) anyway. > > No, I mean all the bits that are part of CHAN_NO_VHT80. > > > > > CHAN_NO_VHT80 is actually 2 bits. NO_VHT80MINUS & NO_VHT80PLUS. > Is that ok? > > + IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_VHT80PLUS = 1<<6, > + IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_VHT80MINUS = 1<<7, > > +#define IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_VHT80 \ > + (IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_VHT80PLUS | IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_VHT80MINUS) Right. But did you mean to check that all of them are set? What if one of them is set but the other isn't? 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
