MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CA+XVXffnZnaiTmW-CWNEjHxrUOhyHBJU8pyoBY21OQTQ=o1QgQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1399798250-20987-1-git-send-email-emmanuel.grumbach@intel.com>
	<1399798250-20987-3-git-send-email-emmanuel.grumbach@intel.com>
	<CAB=NE6XOm1EK5CMc8N1xfdKeXcfxRuyCZQtUXQGC3wyGXudAEQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+XVXfeEWB5NasJnEGXrm0aXsdhz7AZR2Az_Azv3rBbnrvatcg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAB=NE6U=YaomArGA4VKCOv974AREw3eiTKM9U-fnjvidCDJ90g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+XVXfcJ4H32D6ZABZ9tSC2JO0Dv3c3uuHkEC-m0P4q0JJcdgQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAB=NE6UtCkxvQ=4ZnwnsEQY6kMdx-x+-YUgu636z0OTbOiNPcw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+XVXfcvXEi0o-UGNu1T95+rEfpQoVZPf9oVGL3AiqgGiu-LEw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAB=NE6Vs5y0DANeRbhU7J1z45uxENhcKDG+6b84XPxOh_f_KPw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+XVXffnZnaiTmW-CWNEjHxrUOhyHBJU8pyoBY21OQTQ=o1QgQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 08:21:41 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFED-j=WEkKiEmKBWjbfWCZbu7952JzEGwNt93XCow7565f1dQ@mail.gmail.com> (sfid-20140611_082148_303855_A4809AA6)
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] cfg80211: introduce regulatory flags controlling bw
From: Janusz Dziedzic <janusz.dziedzic@gmail.com>
To: Arik Nemtsov <arik@wizery.com>
Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@do-not-panic.com>,
	Emmanuel Grumbach <emmanuel.grumbach@intel.com>,
	Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
	linux-wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
	Arik Nemtsov <arikx.nemtsov@intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org

2014-06-11 7:24 GMT+02:00 Arik Nemtsov <arik@wizery.com>:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 12:28 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez
> <mcgrof@do-not-panic.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 5:31 AM, Arik Nemtsov <arik@wizery.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez
>>> <mcgrof@do-not-panic.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 2:25 AM, Arik Nemtsov <arik@wizery.com> 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?
>>
>> I would have not brought it up otherwise.
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> You can keep all those bells and whistles provided you respect old
>> userspace and old behavior first.
>
> I guess I'm waiting for some direction on what need to be changed.
> AFAICT, these flags don't hurt old userspace and/or new kernels using
> an old wireless-regdb.
> Can you propose a scenario where the new flags harm something older?
>

The flag NL80211_RRF_NO_80MHZ could be usefull I think. eg to fix
world regd veryfication issue we have:

Current failing line:
(2457 - 2482 @ 40), (20), NO-IR    --> 2482 - 2457 = 25 < 40

Fixed line could be:
(2457 - 2482 @ 40), (20), NO-IR, AUTO-BW, NO-80MHZ

Without NO-80MHZ - AUTO-BW will setup BW=80MHz - I am not sure this is
OK for 2.4?
But setting NO-80MHZ and AUTO-BW flags we will get what expect?

BR
Janusz