From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Sep 18 17:18:35 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44A6216A40F; Mon, 18 Sep 2006 17:18:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sam@errno.com) Received: from ebb.errno.com (ebb.errno.com [69.12.149.25]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBA2D43D69; Mon, 18 Sep 2006 17:18:32 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from sam@errno.com) Received: from [10.0.0.248] (trouble.errno.com [10.0.0.248]) (authenticated bits=0) by ebb.errno.com (8.13.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k8IHIU3P005167 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 18 Sep 2006 10:18:31 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sam@errno.com) Message-ID: <450ED4E6.7080502@errno.com> Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 10:18:30 -0700 From: Sam Leffler User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (X11/20060724) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org References: <200609181616.k8IGG3wc013956@repoman.freebsd.org> <20060918170136.GE51555@tirith.brixandersen.dk> In-Reply-To: <20060918170136.GE51555@tirith.brixandersen.dk> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/dev/ath if_ath.c if_athvar.h X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 17:18:35 -0000 Henrik Brix Andersen wrote: > On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 04:16:03PM +0000, Sam Leffler wrote: >> sam 2006-09-18 16:16:03 UTC >> >> FreeBSD src repository >> >> Modified files: >> sys/dev/ath if_ath.c if_athvar.h >> Log: >> remove stub radar support; it's never been used and future >> hal's will not include the calls (due to redesign) > > I thought radar detection was required for 802.11a devices? DFS is required in the ETSI regulatory domain. But I believe the requirement was slipped and when it will be mandatory is unclear. > > Do you happen to know if the future HALs will introduce another way of > verifying that no radar is present on the selected channel? Radar detection never belonged in the hal. It got stuck there based on a misunderstanding and has since been removed. When there is radar support it will be structured like the rate control code--as an addon to the driver that operates above the hal. Sam