Em 07/09/2022 11:52, Seth Forshee escreveu:
On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 07:21:50PM -0300, Cesar Eduardo Barros wrote:
Em 02/09/2022 11:53, Johannes Berg escreveu:
On Thu, 2022-09-01 at 20:27 -0300, Cesar Eduardo Barros wrote:
+ # This range ends at 5725 MHz, but channel 144 extends to 5730 MHz.
+ # Since 5725 ~ 5730 MHz belongs to the next range which has looser
+ # requirements, we can extend the range by 5 MHz to make the kernel
+ # happy and be able to use channel 144.
+ (5470 - 5730 @ 160), (27), DFS
+ (5730 - 5850 @ 80), (30)
If you do the latter as 160 as well, and add AUTO-BW, couldn't you split
them at 5725 correctly? But I guess it doesn't matter anyway.
This was copied from the US rules (including the four-line comment), which
have an identical split. If AUTO-BW worked here, I'd expect the US rules to
use it.
AUTO-BW would work, and we have countries using it for this case. Iirc
for some countries we move the split to 5730 because even though
5725-5730 is at a lower power limit the rules allow channel 144 to be
used at the power limit for 5710-5725. For the US though I think it's
just historical -- it was done that way initially, and it isn't
important enough that anyone has cared to change it.
The only country I found in the database that does it that way is IL,
and it has the power limits in the opposite direction (its 5470 - 5725
range has a higher power limit than its 5725 - 5875 range, while for BR
and US it's the former range which has a lower power limit); looking at
other countries, AU does the manual adjustment with a comment like US,
while TW has a 5 MHz overlap on its ranges. So the precedent is not
enough for me to be confident that using the official split together
with AUTO-BW would allow using channel 144 (and the 40 MHz and 80 MHz
channels it's part of).
And the single one which does it using AUTO-BW (IL) doesn't change the
bandwidth of its 5725 - 5875 to 160; is it really necessary to do that
change to the bandwidth (considering also that channel 144 is not part
of a pure 160 MHz channel, it could be used only for 80+80)? What about
the 5150 - 5250 and 5250 - 5350 ranges, do they need also to be changed
to 160 so that the combined 5170 - 5330 160 MHz channel can be used, or
does AUTO-BW allow it even though both ranges are declared as allowing
just 80 MHz channels? What about 80+80 channels?
But we do generally try to keep the rules matching the official
documents as much as possible, so for new rules we should split at 5725
and use AUTO-BW as Johannes suggested. Could you send a v2 with that
change?
Well, it's not exactly a new rule (the current database already has a
5490 - 5730 @ 160 rule), but we could treat it that way since we're
mostly rewriting them all (and the original didn't say where that came
from).
Since I'm not certain that AUTO-BW will be interpreted as expected,
before doing that change, I'll try to see if I can test it first on my
laptop (by sheer luck, I happen to be using the 5650 - 5730 80 MHz
channel right now, so I'd just have to see if it still connects at 80
MHz, assuming I can somehow convince the kernel to load a modified
file). Or would you prefer me to send the patch first (with or without a
change in the channel bandwidths)?
--
Cesar Eduardo Barros
cesarb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
wireless-regdb mailing list
wireless-regdb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless-regdb
