Return-path: Received: from purkki.adurom.net ([80.68.90.206]:33329 "EHLO purkki.adurom.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751917Ab2HUHuS (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Aug 2012 03:50:18 -0400 From: Kalle Valo To: Johannes Berg Cc: Mahesh Palivela , Stanislaw Gruszka , "linux-wireless\@vger.kernel.org" , "linville\@tuxdriver.com" Subject: Re: [PATCH] cfg80211: VHT (11ac) Regulatory change References: <952C5D5D0470AE4FB7D8A75C6ADC71CA0FCDD559@mbx022-e1-nj-10.exch022.domain.local> <20120816102211.GD17659@redhat.com> <502CF2D5.6020704@posedge.com> <20120817140657.GA1645@redhat.com> <502E85D9.5050301@posedge.com> <1345480718.4459.37.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 10:50:13 +0300 In-Reply-To: <1345480718.4459.37.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> (Johannes Berg's message of "Mon, 20 Aug 2012 18:38:38 +0200") Message-ID: <87d32k7kga.fsf@purkki.adurom.net> (sfid-20120821_095021_970024_70970E8B) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Johannes Berg writes: > On the other hand, maybe for VHT we want to completely change channel > specifications? Maybe it would be better to allow specifying the > *global* center frequency of the entire channel, and the width, and the > control channel offset instead of encoding everything into the single > channel type value? I don't know. What about the future? Will we see 320 MHz wide channels in 2020? :) After following the discussion about this I'm starting to think that what you propose above makes our life easier in the long run. I just don't trust that using a single channel type value is scalable in the long run. -- Kalle Valo