Return-path: Received: from mail-la0-f46.google.com ([209.85.215.46]:56812 "EHLO mail-la0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751785AbaFJV2a (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jun 2014 17:28:30 -0400 Received: by mail-la0-f46.google.com with SMTP id hz20so4130340lab.5 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 2014 14:28:28 -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: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 14:28:08 -0700 Message-ID: (sfid-20140610_232834_884480_0FACB6C2) Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] cfg80211: introduce regulatory flags controlling bw To: Arik Nemtsov 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 5:31 AM, Arik Nemtsov wrote: > 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? 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. > 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. I get it, its all fine but just address ensuring that old behavior is respected first, then you can add whatever on top of it. Luis