On 03/08/2012 09:07 PM, Seth Forshee wrote:
On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 11:51:03AM -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Quan, David<dquan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I think there is to it more than SW.
Where ever you get this card, is the card tested and regulatory approved for those countries, DFS or not?
Seth, what driver are you using? I know you are using a BCM43224 card.
brcmsmac
It is possible that this card is only regulatory tested for non DFS channels, but now you enable them for passive.
That's a good point.
This means that yes, you are save and not violate DFS rules because you are in passive mode. However, you are in complete violation if the STA finds an AP on that DFS channel and then connects and transmits as this STA is not allow to transmit on that channel since it is not approved.
If the driver being used is a supported vendor driver then I'll punt
this to the vendor (Broadcom). If this is the reversed engineered
driver (b43) that Broadcom to this day seems to blindly ignore even
for regulatory, then I'm happy to recommend based on your input to
leave the regulatory domain as-is given that we cannot guarantee what
the vendor meant as they have not done any work on releasing either
documentation or code to help with their regulatory situation.
It would be nice if Broadcom could weigh in. Cc-ing Arend.
Hi, Seth
Noticed your email yesterday, but did not get to chime into the
conversation. brcmsmac does indeed provide a regulatory hint, which is
either from SPROM or hard-coded to "US". Since "X0" is not a known
regulatory domain for crda it does not make sense to pass it as a
regulatory hint. However, the "full" story is told on linuxwireless.org
(see [1]).
Gr. AvS
[1] http://linuxwireless.org/en/users/Drivers/brcm80211
--
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
