From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755937AbYIJWTR (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Sep 2008 18:19:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753458AbYIJWTB (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Sep 2008 18:19:01 -0400 Received: from mail-gx0-f16.google.com ([209.85.217.16]:41502 "EHLO mail-gx0-f16.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751126AbYIJWTA (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Sep 2008 18:19:00 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references:x-google-sender-auth; b=W6JKh7pb1DOrkfKogb1x7tNWdQpqiGJzewjPlmjmEZo9YswRm4NLpYqd+1Y3wFO4wG hYF61IspjN1zSCM8r11KQhELNShYTlDJ8B/FJJ4aBVS9DgMCkMPmjW6Kp2E0V2kXOXoJ BkGaxgIhFmX2c8f+yxrjvXgibKsfVcTOlSlNM= Message-ID: <43e72e890809101518k35047191hac8b796383a5638@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 15:18:59 -0700 From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" To: "Marcel Holtmann" Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 v6] cfg80211: Add new wireless regulatory infrastructure Cc: linville@tuxdriver.com, johannes@sipsolutions.net, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <1221084429.13336.23.camel@californication> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <1221027589-19203-1-git-send-email-lrodriguez@atheros.com> <1221027589-19203-2-git-send-email-lrodriguez@atheros.com> <1221070650.13336.20.camel@californication> <43e72e890809101318o771100f0jcac9bbea6b863ccb@mail.gmail.com> <1221084429.13336.23.camel@californication> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 782eaf096b849e39 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 3:07 PM, Marcel Holtmann 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