On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 12:15:17PM +0200, Alexander Aring wrote: > > > > > This is for the same reason as above. Alignment in the output, it is a trade > > > > > off between "readability" in two different ways. Alignment in the output or > > > > > printing the full word "Unknown". I will change this to "Unknown" and we can > > > > > change it at a later date if it ever shows up and mess up alignment. In any > > > > > case if "Unknown" shows up the actual frequency should be added instead of > > > > > fixing alignment. ;) > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then maybe some "-" instead "unkown", is this better, or it's too small > > > > then? > > > > > > > > > > The more I think about it the more I feel "Unknown" is better. If for some > > > reason the channel page and channel combination is not listed and "Unknown" is > > > printed the last thing the user will care about is alignment in the output. > > > > > > Channel page and channel number information will not change that often > > > so we should be able to keep up with future changes (additions). I have > > > tried to get hold of the 802.15.4-2015 draft from March/April but > > > without success. The local university will charge me ~350€ or something > > > in that region for it. I wanted it to see if any new channel > > > pages/channels have been added since -2011 edition. > > > > There are some amendments already available for download that > > document new channel pages: > > > > 802.15.4f-2012.pdf: channel pages 7, 8 > > 802.15.4g-2012.pdf: channel pages 9, 10 > > 802.15.4j-2013.pdf: channel page 11 > > 802.15.4k-2013.pdf: channel page 12 > > 802.15.4p-2014.pdf: channel page 13 > > mhhh, I looked into this. At the moment we have a highest channel number > define (don't asking me where this comes from, was before there) [0]. I > thought somewhere from the standard, that's why it's inside > ieee802154.h. > > I see for example 802.15.4k-2013 that the "phyCurrentChannel" range is > above of them. e.g. Table 681. Currently we save it in some array file > and the current channel is a bitfield [1]. > > So I think if we support it in kernel, we need some more granularity > representation of the channels/pages, maybe also introduce some enums > about band identifier information and such things. > > I want to note that only. I'm guessing that it's probably because page 0 supports channels 0-26, and before 802.15.4-2006 there was no concept of channel pages at all. > The current nl802154 for asking supported channel/page should be easily > extendable since we doing for_each_nested stuff there. But Currently there > is a lack of support for channel/page stuff, the datatype is also "u8" and > seems also to be something which fits not in there like "current channel > range: 1-416". > > Oh well, that would be fun to change it again. :-) :-) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wpan" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
