Return-path: Received: from mail-qg0-f42.google.com ([209.85.192.42]:49069 "EHLO mail-qg0-f42.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750808AbaETMbU (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 May 2014 08:31:20 -0400 Received: by mail-qg0-f42.google.com with SMTP id q107so572186qgd.29 for ; Tue, 20 May 2014 05:31:19 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1399798250-20987-1-git-send-email-emmanuel.grumbach@intel.com> <1399798250-20987-3-git-send-email-emmanuel.grumbach@intel.com> From: Arik Nemtsov Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 15:31:04 +0300 Message-ID: (sfid-20140520_143123_761686_BB02ACFA) Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] cfg80211: introduce regulatory flags controlling bw To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Cc: Emmanuel Grumbach , Johannes Berg , linux-wireless , Arik Nemtsov Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 2:25 AM, Arik Nemtsov wrote: >> >> Why won't old regdb rules work? The NL80211_RRF_NO_160MHZ for instance >> is not used anywhere in old or new regdbs. >> So all the new code in reg_get_max_bandwidth is ignored in current or >> older crda/regdb flows. >> >> What am I missing? > > It will also be ignored on newer kernels using old wireless-regdb. Is that a problem? Note that the new flags don't permit more things, but only narrow down the range. So if VHT80 was blocked due to the range, it will still be blocked. Don't really see a reason to use them in newer regdbs either. Like you said - range only is more scalable. These flags are very useful for translating the Intel FW regulatory format to reg.c format. We don't have ranges there, only flags per channel. This allows for seamless interop, with per-channel rules. Regards, Arik