Return-path: Received: from xc.sipsolutions.net ([83.246.72.84]:35108 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751568AbYJNV2V (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Oct 2008 17:28:21 -0400 Subject: Re: New Regulatory Domain Api. From: Johannes Berg To: "John W. Linville" Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" , Zhu Yi , "Kolekar, Abhijeet" , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" In-Reply-To: <20081014211912.GF3349@tuxdriver.com> References: <20081009154547.GB13349@tesla> <1223608949.2510.1061.camel@debian.sh.intel.com> <43e72e890810100949i78c1d813x1b66c6bc0239ef28@mail.gmail.com> <1223967581.2570.144.camel@debian.sh.intel.com> <43e72e890810140004k6bfa72edsf39acbafcf317fa6@mail.gmail.com> <1223969808.2570.153.camel@debian.sh.intel.com> <43e72e890810140204ne135e72kefe379dd3d26f7bc@mail.gmail.com> <20081014203510.GD3349@tuxdriver.com> <1224018957.3027.9.camel@johannes.berg> <20081014211912.GF3349@tuxdriver.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-haQ59EmlWF8TuIwPN0vG" Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 23:27:42 +0200 Message-Id: <1224019662.3027.13.camel@johannes.berg> (sfid-20081014_232841_290207_EB710FAB) Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: --=-haQ59EmlWF8TuIwPN0vG Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 17:19 -0400, John W. Linville wrote: > On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 11:15:57PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > > On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 16:35 -0400, John W. Linville wrote: > >=20 > > > That doesn't sound like quite the correct behavior. If a channel is > > > excluded for regulatory reasons, then I suspect that should govern > > > everyone. But if one card just doesn't support a band, I don't see > > > why any other cards should be limited by that. > > >=20 > > > Did I miss something? > >=20 > > Well, the thing is that the iwlwifi drivers pretend to know the > > regulatory domain; thus when a single-band card registers the regulator= y > > domain, it gets set to just a domain with the single band. >=20 > Ah, now I see what this is about...thanks! >=20 > Should there be an "I make no representation of authority" flag in > the regulatory maps? The only reasonable solution I can come up with is have it make separate hints for 2.4 and 5 GHz and then a single-band card won't say anything about 5 GHz so the dual-band gets to set that part. But OTOH I don't see a reasonable use-case for this whole thing so far---we really only added this after discussions with Marcel at OLS so embedded systems can function w/o crda, but who would build an embedded system with two different cards like that? johannes --=-haQ59EmlWF8TuIwPN0vG Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: Johannes Berg (powerbook) iQIcBAABAgAGBQJI9Q7LAAoJEKVg1VMiehFYuwwP+weBFCyKnfWpxctjOn2p9gxL kZyFiDKzBkfS1QJsala2VTsOnbO+JLTkPTVM9KFlYR78plCLkpgzfVuj+VWbO9h/ vHBPQG70x6X+n3phEYgOVZhsU5jIPC4A7777t+R6GDkNLBklYcOJpNyguvoW6sXS rrjnPPMMeXOAYYoMt8rqsugJmCcva2SnAEdrsQ185QE1lMkGK9BSMXQerA4J2Imr UWnZ3Zr8CTkKdquH9CjW2vUAlxA8Pj+tpWJUxmZTNhDliIkMd4pUsdQ/g0ztVWq+ +Awy6HugaQk10iYw3JpbFciYQ+0B6TM26+tgMDBTBpIZWhiVrRXmVU6W7i1v8s4B K0BOb7P2O5RDWVgTVhRoYsQwv4PKX3J0ZExW5V5Jc04pC+MwfEBG30HL9CfsPDTk ogs3zmArBRWAMa2oOkJguygV5wQMucRiWp1Yb+KCeE9vmHaHlqYeT8WtrhqZbLPP qtyHvgfHExJ5wCzNViSLbhgvbVg5uX/9IsgCDD3HRS6iQ9wDqoSbqjObEvfDG7eb 8HeX7jJBtNq40LDfSAL83Cay6tPtgIFVeACCeorRHMD1adDQ2luRVoTwsJbCt3sc 9h1XzozkrCEXer7pWbjLBQ+rya6QeD4Q0FHRi52bnx7/yRP+Y1CVtCzwSL7gsKj/ VfyblwKhg7Jcc/WQnQ3f =Y/3P -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-haQ59EmlWF8TuIwPN0vG--