On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 11:11 AM, Johannes Berg <johannes at sipsolutions.net> wrote: > On Tue, 2012-12-04 at 10:54 -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > >> >> As I implemented it, it should be checking if HT40 is used. If so then >> >> it should be checking to see if the primary can use 40 MHz bandwidth >> >> and then check to see if the secondary can use 20 MHz. The issue >> >> should be that the code should likely is checking that the secondary >> >> requires 40 MHz. It should only need to check if the secondary can use >> >> 20 MHz if HT40 is desired. >> > >> > I don't think this is really what we should do ... In fact given the way >> > we do it now with overlapping freqbands this would cause more problems >> > than it would solve, I think. >> >> If we end up supporting overlapping frequency rules to be submitted. >> Right now they don't overlap but point taken that we do support it and >> there may possible issue of having them supported. > > 00 has overlapping rules today, also JP and KP I was just thinking that after I wrote this.. otherwise this would not have come up. >> > What it really should check is that for each freqband, as much bandwidth >> > is allowed as falls into that freqband. But given that we have >> > overlapping freqbands, much bandwidth will actually fall into each one >> > of them, so we must allow @40 again ... >> > >> > I'm drawing some pictures now :-) >> >> :) Lets be clear though that your points on overlapping frequency >> rules are a separate architectural position to take than addressing >> the issue at hand. This however is a good crux point for us to >> evaluate this particular architectural consideration. > > Agree. :) Luis
