From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from yw-out-2324.google.com ([74.125.46.28]:15040 "EHLO yw-out-2324.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750825AbYE2J6X (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 May 2008 05:58:23 -0400 Received: by yw-out-2324.google.com with SMTP id 9so2217325ywe.1 for ; Thu, 29 May 2008 02:58:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <1ba2fa240805290258of0559a0t183128d3f9889eae@mail.gmail.com> (sfid-20080529_115826_573977_29D8E9C0) Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 12:58:21 +0300 From: "Tomas Winkler" To: "Johannes Berg" Subject: Re: [PATCH 38/43] mac80211: allow disable FAT in specific configurations Cc: "Zhu Yi" , linville@tuxdriver.com, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, "Emmanuel Grumbach" In-Reply-To: <1212053870.16917.39.camel@johannes.berg> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 References: <1212050128-17132-1-git-send-email-yi.zhu@intel.com> <1212050128-17132-32-git-send-email-yi.zhu@intel.com> <1212050128-17132-33-git-send-email-yi.zhu@intel.com> <1212050128-17132-34-git-send-email-yi.zhu@intel.com> <1212050128-17132-35-git-send-email-yi.zhu@intel.com> <1212050128-17132-36-git-send-email-yi.zhu@intel.com> <1212050128-17132-37-git-send-email-yi.zhu@intel.com> <1212050128-17132-38-git-send-email-yi.zhu@intel.com> <1212050128-17132-39-git-send-email-yi.zhu@intel.com> <1212053870.16917.39.camel@johannes.berg> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Thu, 2008-05-29 at 16:35 +0800, Zhu Yi wrote: >> From: Emmanuel Grumbach >> >> This patch allows to disable FAT channel in specific configurations. >> >> For example the configuration (8, +1), (primary channel 8, extension >> channel 12) isn't permitted in U.S., but (8, -1), (primary channel 8, >> extension channel 4) is. When FAT channel configuration is not >> permitted, FAT channel should be reported as not supported in the >> capabilities of the HT IE in association request. And sssociation is >> performed on 20Mhz channel. > > Can you explain more in detail the underlying regulatory rules? > > It seems to me that (12, -1) would be pretty much the same as (8, +1) as > far as regulatory is concerned. Yes, just beacons will flows on 12 and not on 8 so from protocol point this is important (But this is not what is written in the comment we comparing (8,-1) to (8,+1) - Both are FAT channels - Beacons flow on 8 channel) I'm just thinking about how we should > express this in the regulatory database where we're not really concerned > with channels but rather allowed bands. > Not sure what do you mean, You always need to keep in mind channel, band tuple. Tomas