On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 09:36:33PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Mon, 2015-04-13 at 14:18 -0500, Seth Forshee wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 08:56:36PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > > > On Mon, 2015-04-13 at 11:23 -0500, Seth Forshee wrote: > > > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 05:31:14PM +0200, Jean-Pierre Tosoni wrote: > > > > > A really weird patch that splits the U-NII-2e band into 1, 2 or 3 > > > > > sub-bands to enforce a CAC time of 10 minutes in the range 5600-5650 MHz. > > > > > > > > Wrong maintainer / list. CRDA patches should be directed to Luis and the > > > > linux-wireless list (feel free to Cc wireless-regdb if you like). > > > > > > However, I'm not convinced that this actually *belongs* into the crda > > > code? That seems like the wrong approach - shouldn't these rules be > > > captured in the database? We do have AUTO-BW now so it should be > > > possible, no? > > > > > > And if the timings aren't captured in the db.txt file they really should > > > be. > > > > Yeah with AUTO-BW the bands could be broken up in db.txt, and we could > > even put in the CAC times. But we still can't get the CAC times into the > > current regulatory.bin format, so it doesn't really accomplish anything. > > But then there's also little point in putting any code for it into the > crda binary, no? Just to be clear, I'm not arguing for or against the patch at all. I'm only trying to explain why Jean-Pierre is proposing to change CRDA rather than db.txt. Maybe I should just let him speak for himself ... As I understand it Jean-Pierre is looking for a stop-gap to get CAC times into the kernel until such time as we have a file format which allows getting them from regulatory.bin. Chaning CRDA can accomplish this, whereas modifying db.txt cannot.
