Alvin Šipraga <alsi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Hi Kalle, > > On 7/30/20 2:49 PM, Alvin Šipraga wrote: >> This reverts commit 2dc016599cfa9672a147528ca26d70c3654a5423. >> >> Per Atheros documentation to manufacturers, the EEPROM regulatory domain >> code 0x0 must always map to "US". In particular, it should not map to a >> custom world regulatory domain. For references, see [1] and [2] below. >> Furthermore, __ath_regd_init() has a specific condition to set the >> country code to "US" in this case, which emits the following log >> message: >> >> [ 7.814307] ath: EEPROM indicates default country code should be used >> >> The patch being reverted mistakenly maps 0x0 to the custom world >> regulatory domain 0x64 - the most restrictive of the world regulatory >> domains. The premise of the patch is that in the case of EEPROM >> regulatory domain code 0x0, ath_is_world_regd() should return true. But, >> as stated above, 0x0 should not map to a world regulatory domain, and so >> the function should return false. The original behaviour, whereby >> NL80211_REGDOM_SET_BY_COUNTRY_IE is ignored, was correct according to >> the manufacturer's intent and should not have been changed. >> >> [1] https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/users/drivers/ath#the_0x0_regulatory_domain >> [2] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.wireless.general/38410 >> >> Fixes: 2dc016599cfa ("ath: add support for special 0x0 regulatory domain") >> Cc: Wen Gong <wgong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> Tested-on: QCA9880 hw2.0 PCI 10.2.4-1.0-00047 >> Signed-off-by: Alvin Šipraga <alsi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> drivers/net/wireless/ath/regd.c | 10 +++++----- >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > Do you have any feedback on this patch? No problem if you simply have > not looked yet - I am not sure what kind of lead time to expect on the > list. But without the patch, a (correctly) programmed 0x0 (US) card > will not be able to operate on 5GHz channels without some hacking. I > have cited some references to justify reverting this patch, so I would > like to know if anything further should be done to get this into > future kernels? > > I wonder also if Wen Gong could comment, whose patch I am reverting in > the first place. Maybe there is something I am missing? I'm working on it, I just need to check something internally first. BTW, Brian submitted an identical revert first so I'm planning to use his patch instead of yours: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11573585/ -- https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
