Return-path: Received: from c60.cesmail.net ([216.154.195.49]:7314 "EHLO c60.cesmail.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757598AbYFZTTt (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:19:49 -0400 Subject: Re: [Q] ath5k : doesn't support AP mode? From: Pavel Roskin To: Johannes Berg Cc: Michael Buesch , Stefanik =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E1bor?= , cs010101@gmail.com, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, John Linville In-Reply-To: <1214503739.3783.14.camel@johannes.berg> References: <002901c8d737$e51bb2f0$3b0aa8c0@39fb6b6b6f434b3> <200806261821.31643.mb@bu3sch.de> <1214498071.30722.22.camel@dv> <200806261846.17962.mb@bu3sch.de> <1214501000.3783.0.camel@johannes.berg> <1214503403.18039.6.camel@dv> <1214503739.3783.14.camel@johannes.berg> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 14:18:08 -0400 Message-Id: <1214504288.18039.12.camel@dv> (sfid-20080626_212021_036308_D26E4735) Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, 2008-06-26 at 20:08 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > > I also suspect that certain fixed are needed only for 802.11g or 802.11b > > compliance, but not for the original 802.11 compliance. > > > > Say, if we limit the rate to 1 Mbps, are there any issues that really > > make us non-compliant? > > The fact that we cannot limit the rate like that that? That shouldn't be hard to implement. -- Regards, Pavel Roskin