Return-path: Received: from mail.atheros.com ([12.36.123.2]:41545 "EHLO mail.atheros.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751423AbYJUSCK (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Oct 2008 14:02:10 -0400 Received: from mail.atheros.com ([10.10.20.105]) by sidewinder.atheros.com for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2008 11:02:10 -0700 Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 04:02:03 -0700 From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" To: "John W. Linville" CC: Marcel Holtmann , Luis Rodriguez , Zhu Yi , Johannes Berg , Tomas Winkler , "Kolekar, Abhijeet" , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: New Regulatory Domain Api. Message-ID: <20081021110203.GA8224@tesla> (sfid-20081021_200222_220203_D731BA04) References: <1224554323.24677.248.camel@debian.sh.intel.com> <43e72e890810201937l3be24156t2172590138fda132@mail.gmail.com> <1224561748.24677.274.camel@debian.sh.intel.com> <43e72e890810202158m197b52a8y98844fdc9e1ccfd8@mail.gmail.com> <1224569252.9386.77.camel@californication> <43e72e890810202329g732a97ccxf176bdf4e035ccda@mail.gmail.com> <1224571890.9386.85.camel@californication> <20081021171328.GG17268@tuxdriver.com> <1224611033.9386.98.camel@californication> <20081021174800.GJ17268@tuxdriver.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" In-Reply-To: <20081021174800.GJ17268@tuxdriver.com> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 10:48:00AM -0700, John W. Linville wrote: > On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 07:43:53PM +0200, Marcel Holtmann wrote: > > > > > No we can't have a new (or updated) driver require new userspace. If you > > > > install a 2.6.30 kernel on an Ubuntu Hardy system, it should make the > > > > hardware work without installing an extra userspace component. And yes, > > > > it works for the first card if it provides a regulatory hint, but it > > > > should also work for the second card. > > > > > > That is what WIRELESS_OLD_REGULATORY is for, no? > > > > but that would go away with 2.6.29 if it proceeds as planned. > > I don't see a huge maintenance burden to it the way it is implemented > now. I know Luis will hate the idea, but perhaps we could just let > it linger indefinitely? This thread has about 65 messages on it, and no patches yet from Intel. I rather we talk productively about trying to resolve it with actual code like Johannes or I am. OLD_REGULATORY should still go IMO. Luis