From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail022-1.exch022.serverdata.net ([64.78.22.98]:58985 "EHLO mail022-1.exch022.serverdata.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751979Ab2BXLVU (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Feb 2012 06:21:20 -0500 Message-ID: <4F4772AB.9000305@posedge.com> (sfid-20120224_122123_319595_0FF2B153) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:51:15 +0530 From: Mahesh MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Johannes Berg CC: linville@tuxdriver.com, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Chakra Parvathaneni Subject: Re: [RFCv2] cfg80211: 80Mhz Bandwidth channel flags in 5Gig band References: (sfid-20120222_185112_125868_ED7DF18C) <1329933458.4657.2.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> (sfid-20120222_185746_860409_0CF57D5F) <1329937072.4657.4.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> <4F471F40.8060503@posedge.com> <1330070145.3426.8.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> In-Reply-To: <1330070145.3426.8.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 02/24/2012 01:25 PM, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Fri, 2012-02-24 at 10:55 +0530, Mahesh wrote: > >> Agree. we will work towards updating regulatory database with 80Mhz >> bandwidth in 5Gig band. I had modified code to check maximum bandwidth >> as well. Please find the updated change below. > >> - if (freq_range->max_bandwidth_khz< MHZ_TO_KHZ(40)) >> - bw_flags = IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_HT40; >> + if (freq_range->max_bandwidth_khz< MHZ_TO_KHZ(40)) { >> + bw_flags = IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_HT40 | IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_VHT80; >> + } else if (freq_range->max_bandwidth_khz< MHZ_TO_KHZ(80)) { >> + bw_flags = IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_VHT80; >> + } > > no braces needed > > Also this will always be true now, so the patch isn't very useful right > now? True. But once reg database reflects 80MHz BW, we need it. Anyways its part of new feature. Not a bug fix. > > >> - if (freq_range->max_bandwidth_khz< MHZ_TO_KHZ(40)) >> - bw_flags = IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_HT40; >> + if (freq_range->max_bandwidth_khz< MHZ_TO_KHZ(40)) { >> + bw_flags = IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_HT40 | IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_VHT80; >> + } else if (freq_range->max_bandwidth_khz< MHZ_TO_KHZ(80)) { >> + bw_flags = IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_VHT80; >> + } > > Seems some refactoring could be useful since this is duplicated? May be a macro? > > johannes >