Return-path: Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com ([199.106.114.251]:18932 "EHLO wolverine02.qualcomm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751148Ab2IYQzX (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Sep 2012 12:55:23 -0400 Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 09:56:30 -0700 From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" To: Johannes Berg CC: Vladimir Kondratiev , "John W . Linville" , Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] cfg80211: Fix regulatory check for 60GHz band frequencies Message-ID: <20120925165630.GG3354@lenteja.do-not-panic.com> (sfid-20120925_185604_701460_7B194E91) References: <1348386594-6067-1-git-send-email-qca_vkondrat@qca.qualcomm.com> <1348386594-6067-2-git-send-email-qca_vkondrat@qca.qualcomm.com> <1348558107.10041.19.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" In-Reply-To: <1348558107.10041.19.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 09:28:27AM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Sun, 2012-09-23 at 09:49 +0200, Vladimir Kondratiev wrote: > > Without a fix for this even though channels 1-3 are allowed world > > wide on the rule (57240 - 63720 @ 2160), channel 2 at 60480 MHz > > will end up getting disabled given that it is 3240 MHz from > > both the frequency rule start and end frequency. Fix this by > > using 2 GHz separation assumption for the 2.4 and 5 GHz bands > > but for 60 GHz use a 10 GHz separation before assuming a rule > > is not part of the band. > > Luis, given that you think the regulatory code in the kernel is 802.11 > specific, why are we inferring these rules from the frequencies rather > than using the 802.11 specific information about the band that it > represents? :-D Its a good point freq_reg_info() is at the crux of where we do are still agnostic to 802.11. To make this 802.11 specific and easier to read I suspect we can require passing the chan struct and then we'd use a switch statement for the band. Luis