From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-wr0-f173.google.com ([209.85.128.173]:36060 "EHLO mail-wr0-f173.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750805AbdEIRu1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 May 2017 13:50:27 -0400 Received: by mail-wr0-f173.google.com with SMTP id l50so9323482wrc.3 for ; Tue, 09 May 2017 10:50:26 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1863250.VEhGCjvYY0@prime> References: <20170323133048.30062-2-sw@simonwunderlich.de> <1811221.G4Vz0DPyQ8@prime> <12133a0e-b030-5b21-8de1-3bf7334d47df@fit.fraunhofer.de> <1863250.VEhGCjvYY0@prime> From: Adrian Chadd Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 10:50:25 -0700 Message-ID: (sfid-20170509_195031_736112_4C1A4A64) Subject: Re: [v2,1/3] ath9k: Support channels in licensed bands To: Simon Wunderlich Cc: Kalle Valo , "ath10k@lists.infradead.org" , Mathias Kretschmer , Julian Calaby , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , ath9k-devel , Steve deRosier , Ben Greear Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 9 May 2017 at 05:57, Simon Wunderlich wrote: > Hey Kalle, > > it seems like there was some discussion here and I wouldn't expect too many > more opinions ... do you think we can have a decision based on what has been > discussed here? (Note: FreeBSD has had in-tree support for 4.9GHz and 900MHz bands since forever. I'm actually thinking of extending it to include 5.9 and other UHF bands to cover licenced hardware people are making but then leaving the support disabled unless you compile in very specific licenced bits. No, it doesn't work out of the box unless your NIC actually supports it in the calibration section.) (Note note: some of those channels have non-megahertz boundaries, which means ... yeah, hello inter-operability boundaries. Hilarious.) -adrian From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-wr0-x229.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c0c::229]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.87 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1d89Hd-0001gs-9i for ath10k@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 09 May 2017 17:50:51 +0000 Received: by mail-wr0-x229.google.com with SMTP id z52so9403138wrc.2 for ; Tue, 09 May 2017 10:50:27 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1863250.VEhGCjvYY0@prime> References: <20170323133048.30062-2-sw@simonwunderlich.de> <1811221.G4Vz0DPyQ8@prime> <12133a0e-b030-5b21-8de1-3bf7334d47df@fit.fraunhofer.de> <1863250.VEhGCjvYY0@prime> From: Adrian Chadd Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 10:50:25 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [v2,1/3] ath9k: Support channels in licensed bands List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "ath10k" Errors-To: ath10k-bounces+kvalo=adurom.com@lists.infradead.org To: Simon Wunderlich Cc: Julian Calaby , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , ath9k-devel , "ath10k@lists.infradead.org" , Steve deRosier , Ben Greear , Mathias Kretschmer , Kalle Valo On 9 May 2017 at 05:57, Simon Wunderlich wrote: > Hey Kalle, > > it seems like there was some discussion here and I wouldn't expect too many > more opinions ... do you think we can have a decision based on what has been > discussed here? (Note: FreeBSD has had in-tree support for 4.9GHz and 900MHz bands since forever. I'm actually thinking of extending it to include 5.9 and other UHF bands to cover licenced hardware people are making but then leaving the support disabled unless you compile in very specific licenced bits. No, it doesn't work out of the box unless your NIC actually supports it in the calibration section.) (Note note: some of those channels have non-megahertz boundaries, which means ... yeah, hello inter-operability boundaries. Hilarious.) -adrian _______________________________________________ ath10k mailing list ath10k@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k