From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Williams Subject: Re: proposal for new wireless configuration API Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 14:14:48 -0400 Message-ID: <1155665688.8940.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1155655728.17742.30.camel@ux156> <1155659387.3005.15.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200608151838.58182.mb@bu3sch.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, Jean Tourrilhes , Johannes Berg Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:31451 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030434AbWHOSPx (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Aug 2006 14:15:53 -0400 To: Michael Buesch In-Reply-To: <200608151838.58182.mb@bu3sch.de> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2006-08-15 at 18:38 +0200, Michael Buesch wrote: > On Tuesday 15 August 2006 18:29, Dan Williams wrote: > > o Separate attributes for channel and frequency > > No, channel and freq is the same. It's just another name > for the same child. I would say we only want to deal with channel numbers > in the API. That's much easier, as we don't have to deal with this > fixed-point (or even floating point) mess. Look at WE for the > fixed-point mess. Right, I don't have a problem with only using one or the other; but we _HAVE_ to provide a function in the driver that allows userspace programs to convert channel <-> frequency both ways, like you suggest below. Obviously the channel/frequency mapping isn't the same everywhere. [ or is it? I'd be very uncomfortable using the same channel #s everywhere unless some IEEE spec states exactly what the channel #s are for every frequency range that wireless stuff operates in ] > The userspace tools can easily convert freq to channel and back. > And in the kernel, we can easily provide some small function > to convert from channel to khz and back, for example. But I would > like to see the fixed-point stuff in the API vanish. No argument here; as long as we provide the mapping function in the driver for each card. > > o Method of finding out channel <-> frequency mapping (not all drivers > > support this in the SIOCGIWRANGE handler now) > > Yes, that would be a good idea. > Comes next to the conversion function (see above). Yep. Dan