Return-path: Received: from xc.sipsolutions.net ([83.246.72.84]:49478 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750878AbYJTGuk (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Oct 2008 02:50:40 -0400 Subject: Re: New Regulatory Domain Api. From: Johannes Berg To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Cc: Zhu Yi , Luis Rodriguez , Tomas Winkler , Marcel Holtmann , "John W. Linville" , "Kolekar, Abhijeet" , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" In-Reply-To: <43e72e890810192346q5e0eadbcm26febe45392a2172@mail.gmail.com> (sfid-20081020_084638_110948_D3E45D2B) References: <20081015112517.GF6509@tesla> <1ba2fa240810151757r11060dfble6b58c76a7d0d8d1@mail.gmail.com> <20081015185636.GH15902@tesla> <1224126030.24677.78.camel@debian.sh.intel.com> <20081016113848.GB5899@tesla> <1224471102.24677.124.camel@debian.sh.intel.com> <43e72e890810192040w567fa4f6j1bf40e80084a857e@mail.gmail.com> <1224479933.24677.148.camel@debian.sh.intel.com> <43e72e890810192333r7b3f6a0m56d499d0aed9240e@mail.gmail.com> <1224484685.18024.5.camel@johannes.berg> <43e72e890810192346q5e0eadbcm26febe45392a2172@mail.gmail.com> (sfid-20081020_084638_110948_D3E45D2B) Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-AnGBE/2rVlPATBgMutyB" Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 08:50:31 +0200 Message-Id: <1224485431.18024.12.camel@johannes.berg> (sfid-20081020_085042_471447_851AD2E6) Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: --=-AnGBE/2rVlPATBgMutyB Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, 2008-10-19 at 23:46 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > Sure but an issue here is that if we do deal with band-specific > regulatory domain definitions we change the regulatory behavior from > being "disallow everything first" to "allow everything first, disable > everything in the band for which we encounter a rule in except what > the rule allows". >=20 > Since the regulatory definitions in db.txt are in KHz we are allowing > it to grow as more technology pops up with support for more bands. I > think the first approach was better. The current suggestion of only > applying rules if a band reg definition is present is only to deal > with a rare case. I think its better we try to handle that instead and > keep our existing behaviour. Ack on both points, which is why I said "If we're going to [...]". I don't think I've seen a convincing use case for this other than test environments, in which you can very well just use crda. johannes --=-AnGBE/2rVlPATBgMutyB Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: Johannes Berg (powerbook) iQIcBAABAgAGBQJI/CoyAAoJEKVg1VMiehFYKCsP/i/81Na7S9v/oUccE4KWK71p hc4bAcuD68cytDdh5sZ4vY/5Er4meojFT6byHAd+Mb70WrSXegXXqYUopqnysdH6 p3DRxQyA7zt8n1pL832CSC+HoYmo/X+B11jUfYCjw4erWLdxj4BKY+S54GnW1CZk unasfHGq50YAnffP5yyo9otYEZcJOv4mA5mHdFozjkcqCBJxilkCOx64ugHTtNv1 6yjNWjugKSLbLzUwMwcid5fgufWv+Yavs3oaSD5sAEJ14CMungsr4TW8tQUJn5ZR w1oGdjtUseqAvUOI/mDlQvvmWNyupohhJG5ArqiofF1WPAfe7BAotef3ufF4lA51 DfZKKj2gktBjVv6lDmBzk0IEYOVVROP1Cy0MhJsidyt6uh6ZPctdAWtCkVveZy+K YwNP9KJcj+07QxMX7QQGTECt9dL5YusKrkYnKdMT8zdkmjVtkmViZcR0pRNZVspK 3aUX+1GJa/JQBOqSoMXEUYoYCQD1WHUMANSUnZ0GFtZXjF4Mdstofe1BPJv8niPg sFA+IQEWPP9aT4fQB41wYEZOlQiyzzZfpglflTpxho7r7lFz1o2my9Opd1YqIVuG rfDgKgLLJOV42cIM3s1e/bO/8uTHeAlEQvzq9tYMxSbaZS3bz+aJkKov0Z+TRunF IpMKxv03atAuvbje7Zbo =O8mf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-AnGBE/2rVlPATBgMutyB--