Return-path: Received: from mu-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.134.184]:53812 "EHLO mu-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757071AbXK0JME (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Nov 2007 04:12:04 -0500 Received: by mu-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id i10so1168163mue for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2007 01:12:02 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: (sfid-20071127_091209_753046_C51530B6) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 11:12:01 +0200 From: "Ron Rindjunsky" To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/15] mac80211/iwlwifi (#everything): integrate IEEE802.11n support Cc: linville@tuxdriver.com, johannes@sipsolutions.net, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, flamingice@sourmilk.net, tomas.winkler@intel.com In-Reply-To: <43e72e890711261734s17621900yc9ee5946bc30482e@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 References: <11960864823402-git-send-email-ron.rindjunsky@intel.com> <43e72e890711261734s17621900yc9ee5946bc30482e@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > Ron I haven't been able to review your 802.11n patches yet due to time > but I do remember seeing some "channel" variable in a struct somewhere > at a quick glance on your 802.11n patch series. It was determined a > little while ago that we'd move from static channels to frequency > instead. One reason for this is to stick to 'one' thing later for > regulatory purposes. Another reason that came up later is that > frequency be relied upon even on 5GHz reliably contrary to channel > number -- in 5GHz the channel numbers can be mapped arbitrarily > depending on the regulatory agency your country falls under. Would it > be too much if you used frequency instead of channel or does the the > 802.11n draft specs say you have to use channel somewhere? > > Sorry I couldn't pin point the specific patch yet. it will be helpful to know the specific place where you spotted it, but i will assume you are relating to the channel width and offset?. in that case i took the 802.11n spec name from 2 reasons: 1 - to be clearer to code readers as to right place in the spec 2 - the spec strongly relates to 20/40 Mhz capabilities of the channel, not to the channel itself, (e.g. extention channel), so i saw no reason to break it and to go to frequencies. ron > > Luis