Re: [PATCH 1/2 v6] cfg80211: Add new wireless regulatory infrastructure

[Marcel Holtmann <holtmann@linux.intel.com>]

Hi Luis,

> >> > While reading through it, I came to think about regulatory_hint(). So is
> >> > there a use case where would give it the alpha2 code and the domain
> >> > itself at the same time? If not, then it would make more sense to split
> >> > this into two functions.
> >>
> >> Nope, you either pass an alpha2 or an rd domain which is built by you
> >> (and in that rd structure you can set the alpha2 to your iso3166
> >> alpha2 or "99" if unknown).
> >>
> >> > Maybe something regulatory_alpha2_hint() and
> >> > regulatory_domain_hint(). Just a thought.
> >>
> >> That's how I had it originally but decided to condense it to one
> >> routine since as you could see they pretty much do the same thing
> >> except the case where the rd is provided it calls set_regdom().
> >> Setting it back to use two routines if fine by me too. What is better?
> >> Can we just get this merged and then we can flip it around if
> >> necessary? :) I'm tired of carrying this around.
> >
> > my take on this is that if from an API perspective you can only use one
> > parameter or the other, then it should be two functions.
> 
> This is reasonable, I'll respin, yet once again...

get an agreement with Johannes on the naming. Either _alpha2_hint() or
_hint_alpha2(). Not sure what the others are preferring.

Regards

Marcel