From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from he.sipsolutions.net ([78.46.109.217]:39388 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755207Ab2BVS56 (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Feb 2012 13:57:58 -0500 Subject: Re: [RFC] cfg80211: 80Mhz Bandwidth channel flags in 5Gig band From: Johannes Berg To: Mahesh Cc: linville@tuxdriver.com, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <1329933458.4657.2.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> (sfid-20120222_185746_860409_0CF57D5F) References: (sfid-20120222_185112_125868_ED7DF18C) <1329933458.4657.2.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> (sfid-20120222_185746_860409_0CF57D5F) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 19:57:52 +0100 Message-ID: <1329937072.4657.4.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> (sfid-20120222_195836_735719_3A2758BA) Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, 2012-02-22 at 18:57 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Wed, 2012-02-22 at 23:21 +0530, Mahesh wrote: > > This change is for marking 80Mhz bandwidth supported channel flags in > > 5Gig band. > > This patch is not only completely mangled, it also neglects to actually > support this in the regdb etc. What's the point? I should elaborate. Something like this code is needed, but right now the regulatory database contains things like (5150 - 5350 @ 40), (N/A, 100 mW), NO-OUTDOOR, DFS which means at most 40 MHz can be used. In your patch, you don't even check this maximum bandwidth, which is a bug, but even if you did the database would have to be changed. Also, we probably really need to introduce handling of spectral power limits to make this worthwhile? johannes