Hi Adrien, In the file driver/net/wireless/ath/dfs_pattern_detector.c a comment specify the dfs detector is compliant with EN300 328 1.5.1. Is it also compatible with E300 328 v1.8.1 ? Thanks for your reply. Cedric voncken. > -----Message d'origine----- > De : linux-wireless-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-wireless- > owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] De la part de Adrien Decostre > Envoyé : lundi 27 octobre 2014 19:24 > À : Zefir Kurtisi > Cc : linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ath9k-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Objet : Re: Questions regarding ath9k and new EN 300 328 regulation > > Dear Zefir, > > Thanks a lot for these precisions, This makes thing more clear. > > There is still one thing unclear to me. If we do not consider working on the > DFS channels and that we only want to operate on channels 36, 40, 44 and 48 > in EU. Do we still need to enable DFS flags in ath9k to comply with EN 300 > 328 v1.8.1. I mean, is the same pulse detector algorithm used for DFS and for > the adaptivity tests on channels 36 to 48? > > Many thanks in advance for your answer. > > Best regards > > Adrien > > > On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Zefir Kurtisi <zefir.kurtisi@xxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > On 10/27/2014 03:18 PM, Adrien Decostre wrote: > >> Hello Zefir, > >> > >> Thanks a lot for your answer. This helps me a lot. > >> If I correctly understand, the ability of ath9k to detect all pulses > >> may also depend of the platform performances. So on an embedded > >> platform with limited performances, we may observe more pulses losses > >> than on a more powerful platform. Is this a right statement? > >> > > No, there is no bottleneck in the platform performance. Presumed radar > > pulses are reported as RX_ERROR descriptors and even lower end > > embedded systems are able to handle the load. What makes the > > difference with the minimum pulse width is the chip DFS engine's > > ability to isolate and identify very short spikes as potential radar > pulses. > > > > This goes very deeply into material I had available under NDA while > > implementing the DFS support for ath9k. If you intend to work on that > > topic, I encourage you to contact the folks at QCA and join their 'NDA > > for Developers' program. The document you want to read is 'Baseband DFS 2 > (Radar) Micro-Architecture'. > > > >> What about the CONFIG_ATH9K_DFS_CERTIFIED build options? Do we need > >> it to enable the detection of 0.5usec. pulses? > >> > > Yes, this driver specific flag (also available for 10k) you need to > > set to get the DFS detector built (not related to pulse width). It > > essentially shifts the responsibility of the product working in restricted > bands to you / the manufacturer. > > > > > >> Thanks in advance for your answer. > >> > >> Best regards > >> > >> Adrien > >> > > > > Good Luck, > > Zefir > -- > 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 -- 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
