Return-path: Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:39002 "EHLO mga11.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753182AbYJNHBK (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Oct 2008 03:01:10 -0400 Subject: Re: New Regulatory Domain Api. From: Zhu Yi To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Cc: "Kolekar, Abhijeet" , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" In-Reply-To: <43e72e890810100949i78c1d813x1b66c6bc0239ef28@mail.gmail.com> References: <20081009154547.GB13349@tesla> <1223608949.2510.1061.camel@debian.sh.intel.com> <43e72e890810100949i78c1d813x1b66c6bc0239ef28@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 14:59:41 +0800 Message-Id: <1223967581.2570.144.camel@debian.sh.intel.com> (sfid-20081014_090115_734311_CE93576A) Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 09:49 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > The real correct behavior here, as the comment also > indicates, is we should be doing an intersection between the two > regulatory domains and I sent a RFC on a some initial code I had to > support such intersection. Until that is not merged we just respect > first regulatory request. Why should the intersection be the correct behavior? In my previous example, the intersection of a BG card and an ABG card is the BG bands. Why shouldn't the ABG card have the A band support? Thanks, -yi