Re: [PATCH] cfg80211: 80MHz (11ac) regulatory change

[Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 2012-07-25 at 09:31 +0530, Mahesh Palivela wrote:

> >>> Ok so HT has primary channel and secondary, and VHT has secondary VHT
> >>> which can again be above/below? That would make sense, but you wouldn't
> >>> be covering it.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I am thinking no need of above/below convention as the center frequency
> >> value itself we know.
> >
> > But we don't use the center frequency of the overall Ht40/80/160
> > channel, we always use the center frequency of the control channel.
> >
> 
> 11ac Draft3.0 section 22.3.14 says VHT channel is specified by
> dot11CurrentChannelBandwidth, dot11CurrentChannelCenterFrequencyIndex0,
> dot11CurrentChannelCenterFrequencyIndex1 and dot11CurrentPrimaryChannel
> 
> primary channel comes from HT Op IE.
> chanBW, chanCenterFreq0, chanCenterFreq1 comes from VHT Op IE.
> So multiple secondary channels doesn't seem to be a valid?

Hmm. But that means we have to specify the channel completely
differently? I think we should stick to our scheme of center freq of a
20 MHz channel + surrounding bandwidth, though it obviously won't work
for 80+80. The question will be where we deviate from our previous
scheme. I tend to think that HT80+80 should deviate, I have a feeling it
won't be implemented soon (or ever?) anyway.

> > No, I mean all the bits that are part of CHAN_NO_VHT80.
> >
> 
> 
> CHAN_NO_VHT80 is actually 2 bits. NO_VHT80MINUS & NO_VHT80PLUS.
> Is that ok?
> 
> +	IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_VHT80PLUS	= 1<<6,
> +	IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_VHT80MINUS	= 1<<7,
> 
> +#define IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_VHT80 \
> +	(IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_VHT80PLUS | IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_VHT80MINUS)

Right. But did you mean to check that all of them are set? What if one
of them is set but the other isn't?

johannes

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html