Return-path: Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:63902 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753099AbYKLVoa (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:44:30 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 2.6.28] iwlwifi : Fix channel scanning/association in 5Ghz band From: reinette chatre To: "John W. Linville" Cc: Marcel Holtmann , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , "ipw3945-devel@lists.sourceforge.net" , "Kolekar, Abhijeet" , "Zhu, Yi" In-Reply-To: <20081112212900.GI2411@tuxdriver.com> References: <1225912449-26625-1-git-send-email-reinette.chatre@intel.com> <20081106134950.GB14184@tuxdriver.com> <20081112212900.GI2411@tuxdriver.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 13:45:04 -0800 Message-Id: <1226526304.1115.890.camel@rc-desk> (sfid-20081112_224433_845434_2A148918) Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 13:29 -0800, John W. Linville wrote: > On Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 08:49:50AM -0500, John W. Linville wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 05, 2008 at 11:17:22PM +0100, Marcel Holtmann wrote: > > > > >> This patch is related to bug 11870 at bugzilla.kernel.org. With > > >> correct regulatory information the number of channels to scan > > >> will be correct and not zero as seen in that bug. > > >> > > >> This patch eliminates the need for wireless to be compiled with > > >> CONFIG_WIRELESS_OLD_REGULATORY to get correct regulatory behavior with > > >> iwlwifi. > > > > > > so this is still for 2.6.28, but for 2.6.29 and wireless-testing the API > > > changed and we need a separate or different patch. > > > > > > John, Dave what is your take on pushing this to Linus this late in the > > > merge window? I personally think we should do that. And if not, then > > > change the Intel wireless Kconfig to select > > > CONFIG_WIRELESS_OLD_REGULATORY by default at least. > > > > CONFIG_WIRELESS_OLD_REGULATORY is already 'default y' now. I don't > > really see why iwlwifi should _require_ that if someone decides to > > choose a non-default configuration. > > In case this was unclear, I'm dropping these patches for 2.6.28. ok. > The original post said different patches are needed for -next anyway. The patches needed for -next was recently submitted by Luis (http://marc.info/?l=linux-wireless&m=122610969314498&w=2 ). Reinette