On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 12:24:17PM +0200, Janusz Dziedzic wrote:
> On 11 June 2014 10:49, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 10:03 PM, Janusz Dziedzic
> > <janusz.dziedzic@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> On 11 June 2014 00:09, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:25 AM, Janusz Dziedzic
> >>> <janusz.dziedzic@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>> Remove strange parsers.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Janusz Dziedzic <janusz.dziedzic@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>
> >>> Did you test this with the different types of accepted rules?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Tested with current db.txt (+AUTO-BW in some cases).
> >
> > I was curious more about the different use cases of the output power,
> > sometimes we use dBm, sometimes mW I think. I think I tried your
> > approach and ended up getting inconsistent results for the different
> > cases, so that's why all the parser junk got added. If you found a way
> > to successfully get rid of it though that's awesome, just want to be
> > sure we tested all cases. I purposely tried to upkeep the output to
> > match the input preference, some folks are picky about mW and others
> > like dB, this helps with regulatory rules as they vary depending on
> > the country and the country typically uses one or the other for the
> > definitions.
> >
>
> As a required I assume:
> "\t(%f - %f @ %f), (%f mW)" or
> "\t(%f - %f @ %f), (%f)"
> Rest are optional.
>
> This is the code for eirp:
>
> /* Next get eirp */
> strsep(&line_p, ",");
> if (!line_p) {
> fprintf(stderr, "not found eirp in line: %s\n", line);
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> if (strstr(line_p, "mW")) {
> hits = sscanf(line_p, " (%f mW)", &max_eirp);
> if (hits != 1)
> return -EINVAL;
> reg_rule->power_rule.max_eirp =
> REGLIB_MW_TO_MBM(max_eirp);
> } else {
> hits = sscanf(line_p, " (%f)", &max_eirp);
> if (hits != 1)
> return -EINVAL;
> reg_rule->power_rule.max_eirp =
> REGLIB_DBM_TO_MBM(max_eirp);
> }
>
>
> I see DE have mW (input and db2rd output):
>
> db.txt input
> country DE: DFS-ETSI
> # entries 279004 and 280006
> (2400 - 2483.5 @ 40), (100 mW)
> # entry 303005, 304002 and 305002
> (5150 - 5350 @ 80), (100 mW), NO-OUTDOOR
> # entries 308002, 309001 and 310003
> (5470 - 5725 @ 80), (500 mW), DFS
> # 60 gHz band channels 1-4, ref: Etsi En 302 567
> (57240 - 65880 @ 2160), (40), NO-OUTDOOR
>
> db2rd < db.txt output
> country DE: DFS-ETSI
> (2400.000 - 2483.500 @ 40.000), (20.00)
> (5150.000 - 5350.000 @ 80.000), (20.00), NO-OUTDOOR
> (5470.000 - 5725.000 @ 80.000), (26.98), DFS
> (57240.000 - 65880.000 @ 2160.000), (40.00), NO-OUTDOOR
>
> Do you remember some cases where this couldn't work?
I checked and it seems fine, I thikn I failed to just if and else
for a secondary check, looks good to me, can you resend and also
address any discrepancies on CRDA git tree with what should be
there since I did merge the AUTO patches already, if those need
reverting please specify, otherwise we'll need the parser to also
support that.
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
