Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] cfg80211: introduce regulatory wide bandwidth flag

[Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>]

On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 16:32 -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:

> > This seems reasonable, thanks. Maybe we should require the bandwidth to
> > not be set at all or something? At least maybe in the regdb parser - it
> > makes very little sense to have @20 and then ignore it completely?
> > 
> > Or maybe the userspace code could just not expose the flag, but rather
> > set the new "wide_bw" flag when all the rules are marked as @N/A (and
> > treat a combination of @number and @N/A as a bug)?
> 
> The optimizer code I added to CRDA does all this for us, so technically,
> unless I'm missing something, this could be dealt with magically in
> userspace. Its also unclear why we'd define this as a regulatory
> parameter -- this just seems to make sense.
> 
> I'd look at extending CRDA binary to use the optimizer on the regulatory
> domain prior to sending it to the kernel. All of a sudden you get full
> support for this for free on any kernel.

I'm not sure I get it. Whatever 'optimisation' you're doing surely can't
be changing the semantics of the rules, which are currently defined to
be separate and channels can't cross different rules. This may not be
all that interesting for most country entries today, but there are a few
that have overlapping rules and regardless, it's some form of API/ABI.

In any case, no optimiser can actually do what Janusz needs, since he
needs the ability to split up existing frequency ranges due to different
flags in parts of those, while keeping the ability to use channels that
use multiple ranges.

The only thing I could think of an optimiser doing is combine ranges,
but then it would lose flags which can't be right. And in fact combining
rules would be breaking the current db.txt format. I won't let you get
away with that on the kernel/userspace API (hence this patch), but if
you can get away with breaking it in CRDA I'm only going to roll my eyes
a bit :-)

johannes