Return-path: Received: from s3.sipsolutions.net ([144.76.43.152]:41899 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756603Ab3GVOlE (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Jul 2013 10:41:04 -0400 Message-ID: <1374504059.14517.12.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> (sfid-20130722_164108_399142_BEFE9603) Subject: Re: So, which IEEE<->Frequency mappings should we be all using? From: Johannes Berg To: Adrian Chadd Cc: freebsd-wireless@freebsd.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 16:40:59 +0200 In-Reply-To: (sfid-20130717_194238_629152_551DCEC6) References: (sfid-20130717_194238_629152_551DCEC6) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, 2013-07-17 at 10:42 -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote: > * 420MHz > * 700MHz > * 900MHz (which we already have, due to history); > * 3.6GHz > * 4.9GHz 3.6 should have been defined in the spec recently, 4.9 surely is defined already (though the whole stack will have to support the dot11ChannelStartingFactor) The others are kinda non-standard extensions, and you probably won't even be able to properly support them since they're kinda pretend-handled like 2.4 GHz. johannes