Re: [PATCH 2/7] cfg80211: introduce regulatory flags controlling bw

[Janusz Dziedzic <janusz.dziedzic@gmail.com>]

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