From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail.atheros.com ([12.36.123.2]:57248 "EHLO mail.atheros.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751737AbZAFRgw (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Jan 2009 12:36:52 -0500 Received: from mail.atheros.com ([10.10.20.108]) by sidewinder.atheros.com for ; Tue, 06 Jan 2009 09:36:52 -0800 Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 09:36:47 -0800 From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" To: Ivo van Doorn CC: Luis Rodriguez , Gertjan van Wingerde , "John W. Linville" , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , "rt2400-devel@lists.sourceforge.net" Subject: Re: [PATCH] rt2x00: Provide regulatory hint with rt2500pci/usb Message-ID: <20090106173647.GP6834@tesla> (sfid-20090106_183656_741134_3A3F9BA8) References: <200901042021.10904.IvDoorn@gmail.com> <200901052321.46422.IvDoorn@gmail.com> <20090105234546.GK6834@tesla> <200901061832.20529.IvDoorn@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" In-Reply-To: <200901061832.20529.IvDoorn@gmail.com> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 09:32:20AM -0800, Ivo van Doorn wrote: > > > Sure, I was a bit doubting about the timing of the call, I noticed that zd1211rw called it during the start() > > > callback function. Would that be the best location? Or right after ieee80211_register_hw()? > > > > Doesn't really matter, so long as its after ieee80211_register_hw() has been called > > would be nice. > > Ok. > > > > > 2. I'm still puzzled how to handle the two different values that the EEPROM has, namely one for the bg band and one for the a band. I've handled it by registering the one associated with the configured band, but that seems to be unlikely to be correct. I still haven't found a better way to handle this. > > > > > > Because of this I hadn't looked very deep into rt61 and rt73 yet. > > > > > > > The problem isn't there for the bits that Ivo sent, as the rt2500 devices don't support the a band. > > > > > > For rt2500pci and rt2500usb there are chipsets which support 5GHz (they are rare, but they do exist), > > > comments for the Ralink drivers indicate they simply didn't add the regulatory domain definitions yet. > > > > Based on the documentation from the EEPROM for all devices I read that its recommended > > that the EEPROM *not be relied on for the regulatory domain*, instead it recommends the > > windows registry be used. > > > > Based on tests for the devices with only one band, do are you seeing an actual regulatory > > domain in the EEPROM? > > I have to check, but I don't think I have any hardware with valid domain values. > > > To deal with the issue of having two separate EEPROM values for a regulatory domain > > and since the documentation indicates to not rely on it I would advise to allow users > > to be compliant by selecting the country they are in. wpa_supplicant has support for > > selecting country now, and so does iw. Eventually I see Network Manager letting users > > select the country. But you guys are the maintainers and developers so you will know > > better. > > Well it is fine with me, understood from earlier discussion that it was advised that drivers > attempted to set the domain if they could. Hence the reason I had added reading the EEPROM > for domain values to the TODO list. But it is true that it is quite rare that there are valid values > for it. So it would be fine with me by letting the user handle it completely. I see -- well if there are *some* cards that do have valid EEPROM values then it seems worth it to do the actual regulatory_hint(), for dual band cards you can probably just not support it. But its up to you guys. Just my advice based on the documentation I have read so far. Luis