On 10/06/2012 01:15 AM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
On 2012-10-05 11:02 PM, Arend van Spriel wrote:
On 10/05/2012 10:22 PM, John W. Linville wrote:
Anyone object? I suspect that Johannes may be a little more
busy/distracted than usual for the next few days/weeks...
John
On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 07:51:46PM +0200, Felix Fietkau wrote:
When not intersecting, orig->chan_mag is initialized to zero. Because of
that, the regulatory antenna gain limit never gets set.
Signed-off-by: Felix Fietkau <nbd@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
---
net/wireless/reg.c | 3 +--
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/wireless/reg.c b/net/wireless/reg.c
index 3b8cbbc..1a16f19 100644
--- a/net/wireless/reg.c
+++ b/net/wireless/reg.c
@@ -915,8 +915,7 @@ static void handle_channel(struct wiphy *wiphy,
chan->beacon_found = false;
chan->flags = flags | bw_flags | map_regdom_flags(reg_rule->flags);
- chan->max_antenna_gain = min(chan->orig_mag,
- (int) MBI_TO_DBI(power_rule->max_antenna_gain));
Just reading the commit message, I would think it better to initialize
chan->orig_mag to INT_MAX. Just my 0.02$
I'm not sure it's useful for the driver to be able to add initial max
antenna gain restrictions that way (which IMHO is the only point to
using chan->orig_mag).
I think it's better (and more predictable) to just stick to the power
rules from the regulatory information.
- Felix
Ok,
I was not understanding the usage scenario here. Your patch will ignore
any driver initialized max antenna gain, which does not sound right to
me. What if chan->orig_mag is a sensible (non-zero) value, which is
lower than the value in regulatory power rule? Just seems that the patch
changes more than the commit message it saying.
Gr. AvS
--
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
