Return-path: Received: from s3.sipsolutions.net ([5.9.151.49]:52930 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932525AbcJXOij (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Oct 2016 10:38:39 -0400 Message-ID: <1477319916.4085.29.camel@sipsolutions.net> (sfid-20161024_163843_189042_A4EA44C3) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] mac80211: passively scan DFS channels if requested From: Johannes Berg To: Simon Wunderlich Cc: Antonio Quartulli , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 16:38:36 +0200 In-Reply-To: <4116422.yZP7iyh9mq@prime> References: <1447464560-28104-1-git-send-email-antonio@meshcoding.com> <3178350.ZYYEYN7rIx@prime> <1477318562.4085.28.camel@sipsolutions.net> <4116422.yZP7iyh9mq@prime> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 2016-10-24 at 16:36 +0200, Simon Wunderlich wrote: > On Monday, October 24, 2016 4:16:02 PM CEST Johannes Berg wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2016-10-24 at 15:42 +0200, Simon Wunderlich wrote: > > > > > > Otherwise, it would be pretty much impossible to perform CSAs to > > > another DFS channel. > > > > I was told that to do that you'd need another NIC that's pre- > > CAC'ing another channel. > > Here is the portion from ETSI 301 893 v1.8.1 [1] (the most recent one > to my knowledege), section 4.7.1.4 which describes operation from > master devices (Access Points): > [...] Yeah I'm pretty sure there are differences in ETSI vs. FCC. Perhaps the information I was told about was for FCC. But perhaps it's all just completely wrong :) johannes