On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Gertjan van Wingerde <gwingerde@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 01/06/09 21:47, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 12:32:47PM -0800, Gertjan van Wingerde wrote: >> >>> >>> On 01/06/09 00:45, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 02:21:46PM -0800, Ivo van Doorn wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Monday 05 January 2009, Gertjan van Wingerde wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 01/05/09 21:08, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> 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? >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> My tests indicate that there are devices out there that have this >>> information set in the EEPROM. Based on tests with my own patch, and my >>> own devices, I have been able to determine the following: >>> >>> 1. rt2400pci --> don't know, don't own a rt2400pci device. >>> 2. rt2500pci --> don't know, don't own a rt2500pci device anymore. >>> 3. rt2500usb --> my e-tech device (not sure which type; the device >>> doesn't say it) has an actual domain set for the bg band. >>> 4. rt61pci --> my Sitecom WL151 device does not contain actual domain >>> information. >>> 5. rt73usb --> my Sitecom WL113-002 device does contain actual domain >>> information, and the codes for the bg band and a band are the same. >>> 6. rt2800pci --> my Sitecom WL182 device does contain actual domain >>> information, and the codes for the bg band and a band are the same. >>> 7. rt2800usb --> my Sitecom WL181 device does contain actual domain >>> information, and the codes for the bg band and a band are the same. >>> >>> So, there are devices out there that do contain "meaningful" regulatory >>> information. >>> >>> Luis, the definitions for the a-band EEPROM codes only give the channel >>> numbers, it doesn't indicate a real "country". Is there any way we can >>> check whether these sets of channels are actually consistent with the >>> regulations of specific countries? >>> >> >> You can help contribute to the wireless-regdb and check that the valid >> channels apply there. >> > > Well, the trouble I'm having is to match the allowed values and channels > against the regdb, to see to which countries each of the values map, if any. > I'm a bit illiterate on channel assignments etc., so I don't know how to do > the math from channel number to frequency, and all the other stuff that is > in the regdb. Look at net/wireless/util.c ieee80211_channel_to_frequency() for how to do this. If all you have is channel maps then just focus on that then. 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
