Re: [PATCH 4/5] crda: Updated regulatory information for France (FR)

["Luis R. Rodriguez" <lrodriguez@atheros.com>]

CC'ing Jean as he's another French wireless developer.

On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 01:20:46PM -0700, Benoit PAPILLAULT wrote:
> This patch is for review. It might be tricky to use the INDOOR/OUTDOOR
> with those definitions, but it will be another issue.

INDOOR/OUTDOOR flag is welcomed when it can be determined. In order
to make use of it we will need to add wireless state in cfg80211, and
let the user be able to update this, say through iw or wpa_supplicant.
But that's for later just as with DFS.

But using it in the db is great, thanks.

> Signed-off-by: Benoit PAPILLAULT <benoit.papillault@free.fr>
> ---
>  db.txt |   15 ++++++++++-----
>  1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/db.txt b/db.txt
> index 6a282b6..bfc91ef 100644
> --- a/db.txt
> +++ b/db.txt
> @@ -199,12 +199,17 @@ country FI:
>         (5170 - 5250 @ 40), (N/A, 20)
>         (5250 - 5330 @ 40), (N/A, 20), DFS
>         (5490 - 5710 @ 40), (N/A, 27), DFS
> -
> +# Data from http://www.arcep.fr/index.php?id=9272#12931
> +# Updated 2008-10-04
> +# 1W => 30dBm, 200mW => 23dBm, 100mW => 20dBm, 10mW => 10dBm
> +# TPC is needed for 5250-5350 and 5470-5725, which flag to use?
>  country FR:
> -       (2402 - 2482 @ 40), (N/A, 20)
> -       (5170 - 5250 @ 40), (N/A, 20)
> -       (5250 - 5330 @ 40), (N/A, 20), DFS
> -       (5490 - 5710 @ 40), (N/A, 27), DFS
> +       (2400 - 2454 @ 40), (N/A, 20)
> +       (2454 - 2483.5 @ 40), (N/A, 20), NO-OUTDOOR

2483.5 - 2454 = 29.5 so 29.5 should be the max bandwidth.

> +       (2454 - 2483.5 @ 40), (N/A, 10), NO-INDOOR

Same here.

> +       (5150 - 5250 @ 40), (N/A, 23), NO-OUTDOOR
> +       (5250 - 5350 @ 40), (N/A, 23), NO-OUTDOOR, DFS, PASSIVE-SCAN
> +       (5470 - 5725 @ 40), (N/A, 30), DFS, PASSIVE-SCAN

Hm, actually so I had removed PASSIVE-SCAN from all entries
as I had determined that this was only used for DFS purposes.
As you can see in your case both have DFS so I'd leave only DFS.
So essentially we can get rid of these:

        RRF_PASSIVE_SCAN        = 1<<7, /* passive scan is required */
        RRF_NO_IBSS             = 1<<8, /* IBSS is not allowed */

What I noted was that PASSIVE-SCAN for example was only used for when
we don't have DFS in STA and NO_IBSS when we don't have DFS in IBSS.

So we can just stick to DFS flag, unless you are aware of other
considerations for them. Thoughts?

  Luis