From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from he.sipsolutions.net ([78.46.109.217] helo=sipsolutions.net) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.76 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1TfxtM-00076D-Ds for wireless-regdb@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2012 19:10:52 +0000 Message-ID: <1354648275.9608.18.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> From: Johannes Berg Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2012 20:11:15 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: <1352713865.9525.9.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> <1354643287.9608.8.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> <1354645223.9608.11.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> <1354646482.9608.15.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [wireless-regdb] [PATCH] regdb: allow 40 MHz on world roaming channels 12/13 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: wireless-regdb-bounces@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: wireless-regdb-bounces+johannes=sipsolutions.net@lists.infradead.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Cc: wireless-regdb@lists.infradead.org List-ID: On Tue, 2012-12-04 at 10:54 -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > >> As I implemented it, it should be checking if HT40 is used. If so then > >> it should be checking to see if the primary can use 40 MHz bandwidth > >> and then check to see if the secondary can use 20 MHz. The issue > >> should be that the code should likely is checking that the secondary > >> requires 40 MHz. It should only need to check if the secondary can use > >> 20 MHz if HT40 is desired. > > > > I don't think this is really what we should do ... In fact given the way > > we do it now with overlapping freqbands this would cause more problems > > than it would solve, I think. > > If we end up supporting overlapping frequency rules to be submitted. > Right now they don't overlap but point taken that we do support it and > there may possible issue of having them supported. 00 has overlapping rules today, also JP and KP > > What it really should check is that for each freqband, as much bandwidth > > is allowed as falls into that freqband. But given that we have > > overlapping freqbands, much bandwidth will actually fall into each one > > of them, so we must allow @40 again ... > > > > I'm drawing some pictures now :-) > > :) Lets be clear though that your points on overlapping frequency > rules are a separate architectural position to take than addressing > the issue at hand. This however is a good crux point for us to > evaluate this particular architectural consideration. Agree. johannes _______________________________________________ wireless-regdb mailing list wireless-regdb@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless-regdb