From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:44593 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753167Ab2HUITS (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Aug 2012 04:19:18 -0400 Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 10:18:40 +0200 From: Stanislaw Gruszka To: Kalle Valo Cc: Johannes Berg , Mahesh Palivela , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , "linville@tuxdriver.com" Subject: Re: [PATCH] cfg80211: VHT (11ac) Regulatory change Message-ID: <20120821081839.GA2380@redhat.com> (sfid-20120821_101924_070970_AB5D1BD3) References: <952C5D5D0470AE4FB7D8A75C6ADC71CA0FCDD559@mbx022-e1-nj-10.exch022.domain.local> <20120816102211.GD17659@redhat.com> <502CF2D5.6020704@posedge.com> <20120817140657.GA1645@redhat.com> <502E85D9.5050301@posedge.com> <1345480718.4459.37.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> <87d32k7kga.fsf@purkki.adurom.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <87d32k7kga.fsf@purkki.adurom.net> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 10:50:13AM +0300, Kalle Valo wrote: > Johannes Berg writes: > > > On the other hand, maybe for VHT we want to completely change channel > > specifications? Maybe it would be better to allow specifying the > > *global* center frequency of the entire channel, and the width, and the > > control channel offset instead of encoding everything into the single > > channel type value? I don't know. > > What about the future? Will we see 320 MHz wide channels in 2020? :) Not in 2016 ? > After following the discussion about this I'm starting to think that > what you propose above makes our life easier in the long run. I just > don't trust that using a single channel type value is scalable in the > long run. Yeh, I think our channel description in code should reflect to what we have in new spec. That should fit well for legacy channels as well. Stanislaw