From owner-freebsd-wireless@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jul 22 17:35:29 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-wireless@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BA8CC6D for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 17:35:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from adrian.chadd@gmail.com) Received: from mail-wg0-x233.google.com (mail-wg0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 156242A69 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 17:35:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wg0-f51.google.com with SMTP id e11so6129470wgh.18 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 10:35:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=ZsUkJ2ZU/xQd+1bj7PpYncOH8Irm5rD21SVqH/7nCzk=; b=ujFXkZmIMyTRxWu8M+ArY2l5eO9z35LQpZl+3VyR0Vrghg725PKlF4PHlzj3r9yXiP qDallRZQ0vojOZiPjLgDRRBQ/fAWBX+bk6ylWQ/vSsAD5mym16eydsSau2tm62Eu9fGL svzdSFbJ+Eimf+psuFutgiB4P1ZQzD0GfNp2YYYNAfchUhaTZlwDCC/Dal10klWPkrec 4j/IyYuEasxCCH8r4sbP+8siHh/LLmXXnyEc2GldbbAtN64s32HZ0nd9HI6F7E2O+PPI Opma1Z/FfmX2qbwd4AeIlixdtZDOpMhj7w/B6eWi29k2s1kNDE0m1lKK1Nk7jpslTPci Qw3w== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.160.165 with SMTP id xl5mr30391836wib.46.1374514527286; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 10:35:27 -0700 (PDT) Sender: adrian.chadd@gmail.com Received: by 10.217.94.132 with HTTP; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 10:35:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1374504059.14517.12.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> References: <1374504059.14517.12.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 10:35:27 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: zNFMVE6hlv-q3tG3_LetpA0SCDg Message-ID: Subject: Re: So, which IEEE<->Frequency mappings should we be all using? From: Adrian Chadd To: Johannes Berg Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: freebsd-wireless@freebsd.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-wireless@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussions of 802.11 stack, tools device driver development." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 17:35:29 -0000 Well, the UHF stuff is available now and vendors are making cards for them. I'm happy just mapping them to 2.4GHz channels for now but it severely restricts the channels (ie, spacing/width) we can use in that range. adrian On 22 July 2013 07:40, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Wed, 2013-07-17 at 10:42 -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote: > >> * 420MHz >> * 700MHz >> * 900MHz (which we already have, due to history); >> * 3.6GHz >> * 4.9GHz > > 3.6 should have been defined in the spec recently, 4.9 surely is defined > already (though the whole stack will have to support the > dot11ChannelStartingFactor) > > The others are kinda non-standard extensions, and you probably won't > even be able to properly support them since they're kinda > pretend-handled like 2.4 GHz. > > johannes >