From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from he.sipsolutions.net ([78.46.109.217]:40466 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752612Ab2LJMdl (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Dec 2012 07:33:41 -0500 Message-ID: <1355142835.9857.19.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> (sfid-20121210_133344_447516_E91F43D6) Subject: Re: [PATCH] wireless-regdb: add regulatory rule for ETSI members on 60gHz band From: Johannes Berg To: Vladimir Kondratiev Cc: linville@tuxdriver.com, wireless-regdb@lists.infradead.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 13:33:55 +0100 In-Reply-To: <2225032.pbhpKMrF3f@lx-vladimir> References: <8774585.BvFN3Opv12@lx-vladimir> <1424987.QUc2GD1qWX@lx-vladimir> <1355139107.9857.15.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> <2225032.pbhpKMrF3f@lx-vladimir> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 2012-12-10 at 14:15 +0200, Vladimir Kondratiev wrote: > On Monday, December 10, 2012 12:31:47 PM Johannes Berg wrote: > > does the kernel understand the two rules with > > different TX power/outdoor restriction properly? > > Oh no! You are right, kernel won't get it. > > In general: What is the right way to specify different restrictions > for indoor and outdoor? I don't know if we have a way to handle it right now ... > In this particular case, would it be appropriate to specify > indoor usage only, as 60g wi-fi will be used mostly indoor? With the current rule system that'd be the only way, I think. We should keep it in mind for the new rule system. However, I notice there are also spectral power limits, that might be relevant in case anyone ever uses the database for narrower channels? johannes From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from he.sipsolutions.net ([78.46.109.217] helo=sipsolutions.net) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.76 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1Ti2YF-0002JB-FZ for wireless-regdb@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2012 12:33:40 +0000 Message-ID: <1355142835.9857.19.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> From: Johannes Berg Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 13:33:55 +0100 In-Reply-To: <2225032.pbhpKMrF3f@lx-vladimir> References: <8774585.BvFN3Opv12@lx-vladimir> <1424987.QUc2GD1qWX@lx-vladimir> <1355139107.9857.15.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> <2225032.pbhpKMrF3f@lx-vladimir> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [wireless-regdb] [PATCH] wireless-regdb: add regulatory rule for ETSI members on 60gHz band List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: wireless-regdb-bounces@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: wireless-regdb-bounces+johannes=sipsolutions.net@lists.infradead.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit To: Vladimir Kondratiev Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, wireless-regdb@lists.infradead.org, linville@tuxdriver.com List-ID: On Mon, 2012-12-10 at 14:15 +0200, Vladimir Kondratiev wrote: > On Monday, December 10, 2012 12:31:47 PM Johannes Berg wrote: > > does the kernel understand the two rules with > > different TX power/outdoor restriction properly? > > Oh no! You are right, kernel won't get it. > > In general: What is the right way to specify different restrictions > for indoor and outdoor? I don't know if we have a way to handle it right now ... > In this particular case, would it be appropriate to specify > indoor usage only, as 60g wi-fi will be used mostly indoor? With the current rule system that'd be the only way, I think. We should keep it in mind for the new rule system. However, I notice there are also spectral power limits, that might be relevant in case anyone ever uses the database for narrower channels? johannes _______________________________________________ wireless-regdb mailing list wireless-regdb@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless-regdb