Return-path: Received: from mail-iw0-f204.google.com ([209.85.223.204]:63728 "EHLO mail-iw0-f204.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754310AbZIAVjS (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Sep 2009 17:39:18 -0400 Received: by iwn42 with SMTP id 42so145159iwn.33 for ; Tue, 01 Sep 2009 14:39:20 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <40f31dec0908282151t245912f0ye79684d4a519f3c9@mail.gmail.com> References: <40f31dec0908282151t245912f0ye79684d4a519f3c9@mail.gmail.com> From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 14:39:00 -0700 Message-ID: <43e72e890909011439g17a2926ifca147600ba9a10b@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: Ath5k and proprietary extensions To: Nick Kossifidis Cc: "John W. Linville" , Bob Copeland , proski@gnu.org, ath5k-devel@lists.ath5k.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, ic.felix@gmail.com, Felix Fietkau Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 9:51 PM, Nick Kossifidis wrote: FWIW I plan on ignoring all bug reports for all of these vendor extensions. The only thing I may consider looking at is 10 / 5 MHz channel bandwidth usage and when its allowed by the standard. Luis