Return-path: Received: from mail-vw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.212.46]:56433 "EHLO mail-vw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932997Ab0FBVhd convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Jun 2010 17:37:33 -0400 Received: by vws11 with SMTP id 11so3100309vws.19 for ; Wed, 02 Jun 2010 14:37:32 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1274856569-13436-1-git-send-email-emmanuel.grumbach@intel.com> <4825B8A2C4E264489E57869F0DCFB22343E33E611F@hasmsx502.ger.corp.intel.com> <4825B8A2C4E264489E57869F0DCFB22343E33E6133@hasmsx502.ger.corp.intel.com> From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 14:37:09 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC] wireless-regdb: Add A band in IL To: Emmanuel Grumbach Cc: "Grumbach, Emmanuel" , "linville@tuxdriver.com" , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , Michael Green , David Quan Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Emmanuel Grumbach wrote: >> wrote: >> >>On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Grumbach, Emmanuel >> >> wrote: >> >>>>>  country IL: >> >>>>>        (2402 - 2482 @ 40), (N/A, 20) >> >>>>> +       (5150 - 5250 @ 40). (N/A, 200 mW), NO-OUTDOOR >> >>>>> +       (5250 - 5350 @ 40). (N/A, 200 mW), NO-OUTDOOR, DFS >> >>>> >> >>>>I believe the one standing issue here is you are enabling HT40 on 5 >> >>>>GHz, how about enabling 2.4 GHz first, and then through a separate >> >>>>patch and time/review we review the HT40 stuff, unless you are in no >> >>>>rush to get 2.4 GHz enabled. >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> I am not following... HT40 on 2.4 GHz is already enabled... >> >>> What should I enable in 2.4 GHz ? >> >> >> >>Sorry I meant 5 GHz. >> > >> > Actually 40GHz is less a problem in 5GHz than in 2.4GHz since in 2.4GHz >> > I need to have a "Coexistence mechanism", which is not required in 5GHz. >> > This Coexistence mechanism is apparently implemented by one OEM under the >> > name "Clear Channel Assessment (CCA)". >> > >> > In short, I don't think there is any special issue with 40MHz in 5GHz, but >> > I may miss something here... In any case, I have no problem with sending >> > a patch that allows 5GHz in 20MHz for the moment. >> > I can also have a look at the EEPROM in our NICs which is supposed to have >> > all the needed limitations. Details to follow tomorrow. >> >> OK thanks for the clarification Emmanuel, please give Michael some >> time to review. >> > > > How much time ? :-) Seems he just finished and sent his notes to the list. Luis