Return-path: Received: from rn-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.170.186]:33460 "EHLO rn-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751118AbYJWTvO (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Oct 2008 15:51:14 -0400 Received: by rn-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id k40so331026rnd.17 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 12:51:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <43e72e890810231251s27f2c014y6f4db8e8f1c5b840@mail.gmail.com> (sfid-20081023_215119_217681_606876ED) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 12:51:09 -0700 From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" To: "Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky" Subject: Re: [PATCH] wireless: add regulatory_struct_hint Cc: "Johannes Berg" , "John Linville" , linux-wireless , "Zhu, Yi" , "Marcel Holtmann" In-Reply-To: <8F0C2E89B9AA20448D482EB589641EB306B6390D@orsmsx507.amr.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 References: <1224585110.5521.8.camel@johannes.berg> <20081022122148.GF6190@tesla> <8F0C2E89B9AA20448D482EB589641EB306B6390D@orsmsx507.amr.corp.intel.com> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 12:40 PM, Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky wrote: >>From: Luis R. Rodriguez [mailto:lrodriguez@atheros.com] >> >>Since this is only for wiphys this seems reasonable. I just keep in the >>back of my mind leaving open the possibility for other wireless >>subsystems to be able to make use of the currently set regulatory domain >>and its regulatory rules, but this is in keeping with that as our >>current requests are not changing the regulatory definitions, and just >>as we have a wiphy for last_request we can add later struct >>foo_new_wireless_type there too. I am curious if band definitions >>should be shared between Bluetooth and 802.11 though. I don't think >>BT devices have any notion of regulatory though nor are they capable of >>exporting it though. Marcel is this correct? Inaky -- how about uwb, or >>WiMax? > > UWB swipes over all the bands (from 3.1 to 10.6G), but keeping emission below FCCp15 limits (-41dBm, if memory serves) so it looks as interference to others. All the channel assignments are fixed and known, so in theory, > it'd be possible to coordinate. > > On WiMAX the bands are allocated per country and per operator, so if the > device can tell us what it supports or what the operator is telling it to > use, it should be possible for it to report it to some band controller for coordination, but I don't know if it'll make any sense to ask the device to use only bands so and so, because the knowledge of what's allowed is in the network side. > > I might be missing the crux of the question though :) Actually that helps a lot. As you had mentioned before though we are not sure if *all* WiMAX devices will operate in the same way but its good to know what yours are doing. I was wondering specifically if other wireless technology can contribute to the regulatory rules collection we have in the future. It seems it *might* be more than anything we need coexistence technology. Luis