On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 08:43:06PM +0100, Jiri Benc wrote: > I didn't mean channels, just frequencies. To be conformal with standards > and regulations, we can allow specific frequencies only. Those > frequencies are unambiguously mapped to channels anyway (you have to > specify a band of course). So I see no point in specifying frequencies > from userspace, channels should be enough.
While frequencies map cleanly to channels, the other direction is more difficult, as different bands have the same channel numbers. This isn't theoretical -- 802.11j's lower 5.0Ghz band uses "channels" 8-16, directly clashing with 802.11-1999's 2.4GHz use of channels 8-14. (That's before we even begin to start talking about 802.11j's concept of both 20MHz and 10MHz-wide channels..) It makes more sense to specify the frequency, as there is no ambiguity there at all (and saves us having to specify a [band,channel] pair each time) -- it's trivial to map this into a prettier end-user representation, but that should happen in userland, and not be hardwired into the underlying API/ABI or kernel itself. - Solomon -- Solomon Peachy ICQ: 1318344 Melbourne, FL Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
pgpkcnVp0CUFB.pgp
Description: PGP signature
