On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 12:39:34PM -0800, Gertjan van Wingerde wrote: > On 01/06/09 18:47, Ivo van Doorn wrote: > > On Tuesday 06 January 2009, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 09:32:20AM -0800, Ivo van Doorn wrote: > >> > >>>>>> 2. I'm still puzzled how to handle the two different values that the EEPROM has, namely one for the bg band and one for the a band. I've handled it by registering the one associated with the configured band, but that seems to be unlikely to be correct. I still haven't found a better way to handle this. > >>>>>> > >>>>> Because of this I hadn't looked very deep into rt61 and rt73 yet. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> The problem isn't there for the bits that Ivo sent, as the rt2500 devices don't support the a band. > >>>>>> > >>>>> For rt2500pci and rt2500usb there are chipsets which support 5GHz (they are rare, but they do exist), > >>>>> comments for the Ralink drivers indicate they simply didn't add the regulatory domain definitions yet. > >>>>> > >>>> Based on the documentation from the EEPROM for all devices I read that its recommended > >>>> that the EEPROM *not be relied on for the regulatory domain*, instead it recommends the > >>>> windows registry be used. > >>>> > >>>> Based on tests for the devices with only one band, do are you seeing an actual regulatory > >>>> domain in the EEPROM? > >>>> > >>> I have to check, but I don't think I have any hardware with valid domain values. > >>> > >>> > >>>> To deal with the issue of having two separate EEPROM values for a regulatory domain > >>>> and since the documentation indicates to not rely on it I would advise to allow users > >>>> to be compliant by selecting the country they are in. wpa_supplicant has support for > >>>> selecting country now, and so does iw. Eventually I see Network Manager letting users > >>>> select the country. But you guys are the maintainers and developers so you will know > >>>> better. > >>>> > >>> Well it is fine with me, understood from earlier discussion that it was advised that drivers > >>> attempted to set the domain if they could. Hence the reason I had added reading the EEPROM > >>> for domain values to the TODO list. But it is true that it is quite rare that there are valid values > >>> for it. So it would be fine with me by letting the user handle it completely. > >>> > >> I see -- well if there are *some* cards that do have valid EEPROM values then it seems worth it > >> to do the actual regulatory_hint(), for dual band cards you can probably just not support it. But > >> its up to you guys. Just my advice based on the documentation I have read so far. > >> > > > > Ok. > > > > Gertjan, do you know if there is any hardware with valid GEO data in the EEPROM? > > > > As mentioned in my previous email, I do have devices that have valid GEO > data in the EEPROM. So, we should be able to use that. > Also, for the dual band cards, it does seem that at least the numerical > values are similar for both bands (although I'm not sure that same > numerical values means same regulatory domain). This is at least the > case on all the cards that I own. If that's the case and since dual band cards will most likely have 2ghz support why not just provide regulatory_hint() based on the 2ghz band all the time? > FYI: The legacy drivers do use the information in the EEPROM to > initialize the internal administration of regulatory information, but > allow the end-user to override that via config-file or via private wext > call. It would be good to have a similar possibility for rt2x00. We allow users to change regulatory domain, please see: http://wireless.kernel.org/en/developers/Regulatory/CRDA#Changingregulatorydomains 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
