From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Berg Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 2/3] dt-bindings: document common IEEE 802.11 frequency limit property Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2017 14:49:10 +0100 Message-ID: <1483364950.21014.4.camel@sipsolutions.net> References: <20170102132747.3491-1-zajec5@gmail.com> <20170102132747.3491-2-zajec5@gmail.com> (sfid-20170102_142833_051848_62BC2D8C) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20170102132747.3491-2-zajec5-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> (sfid-20170102_142833_051848_62BC2D8C) Sender: linux-wireless-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: =?UTF-8?Q?Rafa=C5=82_Mi=C5=82ecki?= , linux-wireless-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org Cc: Martin Blumenstingl , Felix Fietkau , Arend van Spriel , Arnd Bergmann , devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, =?UTF-8?Q?Rafa=C5=82_Mi=C5=82ecki?= List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org > +pcie@0,0 { > + reg = <0x0000 0 0 0 0>; > + wifi@0,0 { > + reg = <0x0000 0 0 0 0>; > + ieee80211-freq-limit = <2402000 2432000>, > +        <2432000 2462000>; > + }; > +}; Syntactically, that might be a good example, but semantically it doesn't really make sense to have those ranges that have a common endpoint? johannes