Return-path: Received: from crystal.sipsolutions.net ([195.210.38.204]:55679 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1761178AbXFRLBL (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jun 2007 07:01:11 -0400 Subject: Re: phy mode, channel -> freq mapping (was RE: more nl80211/iw tool code comments) From: Johannes Berg To: Sandesh Goel Cc: David Lamparter , linux-wireless In-Reply-To: <285925A4DF50FC408669C6302216838D024899@sc-exch02.marvell.com> References: <1181759017.29767.117.camel@johannes.berg> <20070614142925.GA24414@charon.n2.diac24.net> <285925A4DF50FC408669C6302216838D024899@sc-exch02.marvell.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-suyVcwxpAF0yBhc3gS+q" Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 13:01:48 +0200 Message-Id: <1182164508.5924.19.camel@johannes.berg> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: --=-suyVcwxpAF0yBhc3gS+q Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, > I think it is cleaner to define a parameter called BAND which can take > values 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz and so on. Then, the combination of BAND and > CHANNEL will uniquely define the operating frequency. > I wasn't sure if this has already been thought about. I look forward to > being educated if I am missing something. Good point. I hadn't really considered this but a/g or n cards really make it necessary to distinguish here, and regulatory stuff would also benefit from defining it that way. johannes --=-suyVcwxpAF0yBhc3gS+q Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: Johannes Berg (powerbook) iD8DBQBGdmYc/ETPhpq3jKURAtP6AJ0Ukww/MuLxHSVc4PoEA5Hmu5ggDgCePa47 6FvY6onVgXAMIOHfEpx+xQA= =ZQ+5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-suyVcwxpAF0yBhc3gS+q--