Message-ID: <43e72e890809101518k35047191hac8b796383a5638@mail.gmail.com> (sfid-20080911_001905_811165_55428258)
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 15:18:59 -0700
From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <lrodriguez@atheros.com>
To: "Marcel Holtmann" <holtmann@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 v6] cfg80211: Add new wireless regulatory infrastructure
Cc: linville@tuxdriver.com, johannes@sipsolutions.net,
	linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <1221084429.13336.23.camel@californication>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
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>
	 <1221084429.13336.23.camel@californication>
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 3:07 PM, Marcel Holtmann
<holtmann@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> 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.

This is reasonable, I'll respin, yet once again...

  Luis