[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1225059157.7157.3.camel@californication>
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2008 23:12:37 +0100
From: Marcel Holtmann <holtmann@...ux.intel.com>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc: "John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rjw@...k.pl, rodriguez@...eros.com,
johannes@...solutions.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] wireless: fix regression caused by regulatory config
option
Hi Arjan,
> > > Change the default to "y" and also adjust the config text a little
> > > to reflect this.
> >
> > Is it common practice to have compatibility options default to
> > "y"? I'm not saying it shouldn't be, just wondering if it has been
> > traditionally?
>
> yes
>
> default should be "keep working as before"
>
> it's not always nice, especially if you're trying to get rid of some
> nasty stuff, but think of it this way: you should be able to use a
> new kernel on an existing distro, at least for a reasonable type of
> distro (eg something shipped in, say, the last 2 years). In this case:
> even Fedora 10 is not likely to work!
I think with the new patches from Johannes to make the regulatory
interaction easier for hardware that has hardware/EEPROM based
regulatory enforcement like our wireless cards, it should be all good.
That seems to be 2.6.20 stuff and then it seems to be safe to remove the
WIRELESS_OLD_REGULATORY option and it would still work with old
userspace (or missing crda/iw) in cases the hardware does regulatory
enforcement.
Regards
Marcel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists