On Sun, 2012-09-23 at 09:49 +0200, Vladimir Kondratiev wrote: > The current regulatory code on cfg80211 performs a check to > see if a regulatory rule belongs to an IEEE band so that if > a Country IE is received and no rules are specified for a > band (which is allowed by IEEE) those bands are left intact. > The current band check assumes a rule is bound to a band > if the rule's start or end frequency is less than 2 GHz > apart from the center of frequency being inspected. > > In order to support 60 GHz for 802.11ad we need to increase > this to account for the channel spacing of 2160 MHz whereby > a channel somewhere in the middle of a regulatory rule may > be more than 2 MHz apart from either the beginning or GHz? > end of the frequency rule. > > Without a fix for this even though channels 1-3 are allowed world > wide on the rule (57240 - 63720 @ 2160), channel 2 at 60480 MHz > will end up getting disabled given that it is 3240 MHz from > both the frequency rule start and end frequency. Fix this by > using 2 GHz separation assumption for the 2.4 and 5 GHz bands > but for 60 GHz use a 10 GHz separation before assuming a rule > is not part of the band. Luis, given that you think the regulatory code in the kernel is 802.11 specific, why are we inferring these rules from the frequencies rather than using the 802.11 specific information about the band that it represents? :-D 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
