Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 10:39 AM, Richard Farina <sidhayn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Jouni Malinen wrote:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 10:29:52AM -0500, Richard Farina wrote:
I actually don't have a problem with removing chan_debug, I was merely
requesting that the size hack it enables not be removed.
More specifically in base.h I believe the code I specifically require is:
#if CHAN_DEBUG
#define ATH_CHAN_MAX (26+26+26+200+200)
#else
#define ATH_CHAN_MAX (14+14+14+252+20)
#endif
When removing chan_debug just please leave the higher max.
I would actually prefer to reduce this number _way_ down to something
reasonable in the upstream kernel. ath5k should not really register more
than channels 1-14 in 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz channels that are really used
(i.e., only every fourth and only at ISM bands). The maximum number
would be somewhere closer to 40 than 500..
If you have a license to use other frequencies, you can take care of
that with your own private patches, but the upstream kernel should not
do that. Channels in 2.3 GHz or 2.5 GHz or many of the 5 GHz areas that
are currently registered do not really belong here in the upstream
kernel no matter what the hardware might be capable of doing.
Your response to my request seems a bit flawed in my eyes. Drivers are
supposed to run the hardware, we have crda to handle limiting the device
back to to what is legal in your area.
CRDA does indeed handle proper regulatory rules for a country however
keep in mind drivers still need to use the data it is calibrated for.
So although the radio can technically use certain frequency ranges you
will find only find calibrated data for the device's targeted EEPROM
settings and for its world roaming capabilities.
Considering the fact that multiple companies sell Atheros wireless cards
that support 4.9GHz and even down to 4.4GHz I'm going to guess that the
hardware is capable just fine. If it provides poor performance in
testing then so be it, but right now, it looks pretty clean on the
spectrum analyzer from where I was sitting the day I did my testing.
I'm sure there are places where it
is legal to use 2192MHz and even if not, look at the driver, it has a max of
2732MHz set in the driver (for the .11b/g radio), clearly the person who
wrote that agrees that drivers should support the hardware.
Please send patches to the wireless regulatory database if such places
do exist and please provide documentation of such findings:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/linville/wireless-regdb.git
Once we have listed a country with these settings then it makes sense
to add it to the database and to the card's capabilities. Keep in mind
that the EEPROM will always be respected though (patches pending).
This seems kind of silly, I was purposely avoiding updating crda because
I'm sure that if I do 99% of the people that use these frequencies will
be breaking the law. At your request, I will send my suggested change
set to wireless-regdb. I only know about the USA but I'm sure if I
google hard enough I can expand it at a later time.
Honestly if you want to argue the legality I purposely posted an RFC for
that, this change (and this email thread) is to stop a regression that would
cause the hardware to no longer be fully and properly supported.
This part is certainly important, and is greatly appreciated.
Yes, I can maintain my own personal patches to all of the drivers in the
kernel (as a matter of fact I likely do) but this kind of thing belongs in
the kernel,
What belongs in the kernel is driver components to make your 802.11
work. The arguments used here are similar to that of disagreeing with
easily allowing mac80211 to allow APs to operate without proper power
save implementation.
we are discussing hardware support, nothing more.
Yes however the channels must be registered too and the EEPROM must be
respected. More work on that area is in the right direction.
I never said anything about hacking around the eeprom, nor did I even
mention allowing people to tx on the channels I am adding. Frankly I'd
like to see half of what I do remain out of kernel because of the
obvious problem of abuse, the changes I have outlined so far belong in
the kernel to allow the hardware to operate to it's full extent.
Limiting the
driver to enforce some random regulatory domain is pointless and against
kernel policy as reg domain enforcement is supposed to be handled by crda or
oldreg.
oldreg is just that -- old, and it will be removed. It was there to
help with the migration and to account for the fact distributions may
not have CRDA packaged yet. Drivers should register channels that make
sense to support for 802.11, not every single channel a radio is
capable of tuning into. If not you'd be seeing the channel list
growing for other drivers as well.
Exactly why does 4400MHz not make sense to use 802.11 on in your
opinion? NATO disagrees as they have adopted equipment such as this:
http://www.belairnetworks.com/solutions/armed_forces.cfm
wireless-regdb update coming up next...
Thanks,
Rick Farina
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
