From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Larry Finger Subject: Re: cfg80211 take 7 Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 09:16:42 -0500 Message-ID: <452A59CA.7060708@lwfinger.net> References: <1160146790.2715.82.camel@ux156> <200610091322.10495.stefan@loplof.de> <1160394555.3258.3.camel@ux156> <200610091452.07098.stefan@loplof.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Johannes Berg , netdev Return-path: Received: from mtiwmhc11.worldnet.att.net ([204.127.131.115]:7372 "EHLO mtiwmhc11.worldnet.att.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932874AbWJIOQy (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Oct 2006 10:16:54 -0400 To: Stefan Rompf In-Reply-To: <200610091452.07098.stefan@loplof.de> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Stefan Rompf wrote: > Am Montag, 9. Oktober 2006 13:49 schrieb Johannes Berg: > >> Yeah, probably makes sense. Though, maybe not just the band but a set of >> channels instead? > > Yes, this would allow us to keep the definition of a band out of kernel. But > to distinguish between 802.11 b and g, we'd need a set of channels and > allowed modulations. I haven't looked at Larry's regulatory domain stuff yet, > but maybe band selection could use the same data structure. cfg80211 would > then just calculate the intersection of user supplied set and set permitted > by regulations. > > Hopefully there is no country that forbids the user *NOT* to scan a specific > channel ;) > Passive scanning is always allowed, AFAIK. Active scanning is a different matter. In the US, no one is allowed to active scan channels 12-14. In addition, there are a number of countries where the regulations prohibit active scanning in some or all of the 5 GHz bands. Larry