Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 v6] cfg80211: Add new wireless regulatory
	infrastructure
From: Marcel Holtmann <holtmann@linux.intel.com>
To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <lrodriguez@atheros.com>
Cc: linville@tuxdriver.com, johannes@sipsolutions.net,
	linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <43e72e890809101318o771100f0jcac9bbea6b863ccb@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1221027589-19203-1-git-send-email-lrodriguez@atheros.com>
	 <1221027589-19203-2-git-send-email-lrodriguez@atheros.com>
	 <1221070650.13336.20.camel@californication>
	 <43e72e890809101318o771100f0jcac9bbea6b863ccb@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 00:07:09 +0200
Message-Id: <1221084429.13336.23.camel@californication> (sfid-20080911_000652_046785_FE532195)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org

Hi Luis,

> > While reading through it, I came to think about regulatory_hint(). So is
> > there a use case where would give it the alpha2 code and the domain
> > itself at the same time? If not, then it would make more sense to split
> > this into two functions.
> 
> Nope, you either pass an alpha2 or an rd domain which is built by you
> (and in that rd structure you can set the alpha2 to your iso3166
> alpha2 or "99" if unknown).
> 
> > Maybe something regulatory_alpha2_hint() and
> > regulatory_domain_hint(). Just a thought.
> 
> That's how I had it originally but decided to condense it to one
> routine since as you could see they pretty much do the same thing
> except the case where the rd is provided it calls set_regdom().
> Setting it back to use two routines if fine by me too. What is better?
> Can we just get this merged and then we can flip it around if
> necessary? :) I'm tired of carrying this around.

my take on this is that if from an API perspective you can only use one
parameter or the other, then it should be two functions.

Regards

Marcel