Re: Problems with regulatory domain support and BCM43224

["Arend van Spriel" <arend@broadcom.com>]

On 04/11/2012 03:39 PM, Seth Forshee wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 12:16:40PM +0200, Arend van Spriel wrote:
>> On 04/10/2012 06:28 PM, Seth Forshee wrote:
>>>> The patch builds, and kind of works. Scanning seems to be fine; I can
>>>>>   see all the APs I expect in my area, including the one on a DFS channel
>>>>>   that I couldn't see previously. I can associate with my 2.4 GHz APs, but
>>>>>   not the 5 GHz AP. I see timme outs waiting for probe responses, and I'm
>>>>>   hitting the WARN_ON_ONCE in brcms_c_wait_for_tx_completion(). I haven't
>>>>>   really debugged this yet -- I thought I'd send out the patch to collect
>>>>>   comments while I debug. Suggestions of what's causing this are also
>>>>>   welcome:)
>>> This was due to always passing true for the value of mute_tx to
>>> brcms_b_set_chanspec() on passive channels. For now I'm just always
>>> passing false, which looks like it ought to be okay as we shouldn't have
>>> any tx on passive channels unless beacons are seen on the channel.
>>
>> Yes. I discovered this as well. Actually, I sent out a patch for
>> some people to test it. I submitted a slightly different patch to
>> John in which tx in unmuted upon receiving a beacon.
>
> I assume you're talking about this patch?
>
> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-wireless/msg88107.html
>
> My original changes would mute tx whenever IEEE80211_CHAN_PASSIVE_SCAN
> is set for the current channel. I'll try that again with your patch.
>

That is the one.

>>>>>   One of the major unresolved issues in the patch is what to do with the
>>>>>   data in struct locale_mimo_info. The regulatory rules only hold one
>>>>>   power level. I'm unsure why the brcmsmac implementation differs in this
>>>>>   regard. Suggestions?
>>> This is still one of the largest unsolved issues. I'm probably going to
>>> need some advice on how to fill out the txpwr information when
>>> regualtory rules external to the driver can be applied.
>>>
>>
>> The power constraints for HT (covered by struct locale_mimo_info)
>> are handled differently from non-HT. I have to confirm internally
>> whether this is specific for our devices or actually needed to be
>> compliant.
>
> Great, thanks.
>

No answer on this one yet, but keep you posted.

Gr. AvS