Re: [PATCH 1/2 v6] cfg80211: Add new wireless regulatory infrastructure

["Luis R. Rodriguez" <lrodriguez@atheros.com>]

On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 3:07 PM, Marcel Holtmann
<holtmann@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> Hi Luis,
>
>> > While reading through it, I came to think about regulatory_hint(). So is
>> > there a use case where would give it the alpha2 code and the domain
>> > itself at the same time? If not, then it would make more sense to split
>> > this into two functions.
>>
>> Nope, you either pass an alpha2 or an rd domain which is built by you
>> (and in that rd structure you can set the alpha2 to your iso3166
>> alpha2 or "99" if unknown).
>>
>> > Maybe something regulatory_alpha2_hint() and
>> > regulatory_domain_hint(). Just a thought.
>>
>> That's how I had it originally but decided to condense it to one
>> routine since as you could see they pretty much do the same thing
>> except the case where the rd is provided it calls set_regdom().
>> Setting it back to use two routines if fine by me too. What is better?
>> Can we just get this merged and then we can flip it around if
>> necessary? :) I'm tired of carrying this around.
>
> my take on this is that if from an API perspective you can only use one
> parameter or the other, then it should be two functions.

This is reasonable, I'll respin, yet once again...

  Luis