Wednesday, December 11, 2013, 7:38:50 PM, you wrote: > On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 7:11 PM, Sander Eikelenboom > <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Wednesday, December 11, 2013, 6:53:07 PM, you wrote: >> >>> The best way to address all this is by automatic region awareness and >>> doing the right thing on devices, this however requires good >>> architecture / calibration data / etc and all that needs to be >>> verified by the system integrators, and finally they need to be >>> certified. If you want to hack your firmware and software go at it, >>> just be aware there are reasons for things. >> >> Well the general problem seems to be "we don't trust the user" so we FORCE him to the lowest >> common denominator (without a way to overrule that) so he is forced to operate *well* within the law. > Its simply stupid to have the user be involved, period, the fact that > a user would be involved should only be for testing or helping > compliance for a busted device, development, research and obviously > hacking. Linux allows all these but by default a device with firmware > and a custom regdomain that will barf if you try to use a channel that > is not allowed is a restriction in firmware. Feel free to reverse > engineer that if you don't like it but it just won't be supported or > go upstream. Now, the common denominator is generally optimized for > best performance as well so you shouldn't have to do anything, and for > APs -- this is typically carefully crafted for a region, also highly > optimized. >>>>> It doesn't seem like you are getting your original requests getting >>>>> processed, so I don't think CRDA is passing it. Can you verify running >>>>> from CRDA code: >>>> >>>> They don't get processed unless i remove the return from the code as i indicated. >>>> If i remove that return it processes the request. >>>> >>>>> ./regdbdump /usr/lib/crda/regulatory.bin >>>> >>>> Although it's in a different location on Debian, /lib/crda/regulatory.bin >>>> the dump seems fine. >> >>> OK thanks. Can you send a patch of what exact change you made, it was >>> unclear from the paste you made. >> >>> diff -u file.c.orig file.c >> >> Well i just did a pull from wireless-next, to try Avinash Patil's patch. >> net/wireless/reg.c had already changed much so i couldn't apply his patch without. >> >> With his patch it sets the regulatory domain, although as now expected i still can not use channels 12 and 13 yet, >> probably due to those firmware restrictions. > Its unclear what results you got, and yeah if the device is restricted > then its just the fw telling the driver its channels and you can't use > them. That's it. You won't be able to override information then unless > you hack the firmware Ping ? Is there anymore information you need to *fix* the problem ? > Luis -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
