Thanks for the update. To me it looks not reasonable to mix in between the two approaches: either we assume countrycodes use the same DFS region for all channels, or each channel/band needs to have its own. Otherwise I feel that a DFS region bitmap would give a semi-flexible compromise that might end up being insufficient to represent some fancy countrycodes. Zefir ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <rodrigue@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: "Zefir Kurtisi" <zefir.kurtisi@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Michael Green" <green@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "David Quan" > <dquan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Kevin Hayes" <hayes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Arun Venkataraman" <arunvenk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: "linux-wireless" <linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Boris Presman" <boris.presman@xxxxxx>, "Assaf Azulay" > <assaf@xxxxxx> > Sent: Wednesday, 28 September, 2011 9:52:15 PM > Subject: Re: Regulatory revamp status > On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Zefir Kurtisi > <zefir.kurtisi@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hello Luis, > > > > I am referring to your announcement for a regulatory revamp at the > > LinuxWireless > > summit in Vancouver and the patches to add DFS information to CRDA > > you > > proposed quite some time ago in [1]. > > > > For the integration of DFS that is currently being worked out by TI, > > we will need to have > > the DFS regulatory domain for the selected countrycode available -- > > that basically was > > implemented with the named patch set. > > Yup, there was one pending item on that and it was to determine > whether or not a country can have different DFS regions for different > frequency bands. If this is true this also implies that a country can > have multiple DFS regions. I have found one country in our internal > regulatory updates which maps Bulgaria to different DFS regions and > have asked our regulatory folks about this. This seems odd to me and > I'd prefer to stick to one DFS region entirely for one country, but if > in the future we forsee DFS regions to be band specific this may > complicate things and we should address this now. Can you tell me if > at TI you have no multiple DFS regions for one country ? Do you guys > have Bulgaria mapping to one DFS region? > > > Could you please give some info on the status of the regulatory > > revamp and particularly if > > the proposed DFS information will be part of it? > > You should consider DFS integration into wireless-regdb as independent > of the regulatory revamp given that we have 16 bits we can use to > extend wireless-regdb for any future capabilities without having to > restructure the format of the file to require a different version of > crda. So DFS can be added as-is today. Updates below on the regulatory > revamp though and DFS. > > I'm chugging along the regulatory revamp slowly given the questions > that come up with it require consulting with several different people. > The latest piece I reviewed was TPC and for that it seems we already > take into account the 3 dB difference into account into > wireless-regdb, however this can be further optimized if TPC is > implemented -- but implementing TPC is device specific in that the TPC > reports and how you use them can vary depending on the device. When > you send TPC report requests will also vary. In short I've latest > determined to stick to what we have today and assume we'll always be > reducing the 3 dB in power built-in already into the wireless-regdb > power for each country where needed. This assumes no proper TPC > implementation. It would still be nice to know when a band requires > TPC though to enable vendors to implement TPC and reduce power not by > 3 dB but by whatever metrics they come up with. Given that 3 dB seems > to be the only required change we likely could stick to that as the > assumed max value and just require a TPC flag, and if the band has > this flag allow the driver / stack / etc to add 3 dB more to power if > it implements TPC. The only problem with this is we'd assume alway a > static 3 dB. Another possibility is to use a u8 value here to > represent the deducted tx power, instead of a bit value for a flag. > > Technically speaking we can support both DFS and TPC in the current > file format for wireless-regdb, we have 16 bits left, we could leave > u8 for DFS region as a bitmask (left to determine about the multiple > DFS regions) and u8 for the tx power adaptation for TPC. Thoughts? > > > One detail that came up in the discussion to > > your patches was whether DFS regulatory domains are constant for a > > countrycode or might > > differ between bands. Has this been clarified meanwhile? > > Not yet! I've asked for input a while ago and today as well. What do > you guys think? > > 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
