From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-ew0-f17.google.com ([209.85.219.17]:41354 "EHLO mail-ew0-f17.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751324AbZAFVvd (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Jan 2009 16:51:33 -0500 Received: by ewy10 with SMTP id 10so8692392ewy.13 for ; Tue, 06 Jan 2009 13:51:31 -0800 (PST) To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Subject: Re: [PATCH] rt2x00: Provide regulatory hint with rt2500pci/usb Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 22:51:28 +0100 Cc: Gertjan van Wingerde , Luis Rodriguez , "John W. Linville" , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , "rt2400-devel@lists.sourceforge.net" References: <200901042021.10904.IvDoorn@gmail.com> <4963C186.2070408@kpnplanet.nl> <20090106204923.GC21980@tesla> In-Reply-To: <20090106204923.GC21980@tesla> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Message-Id: <200901062251.28850.IvDoorn@gmail.com> (sfid-20090106_225139_134580_E62A016D) From: Ivo van Doorn Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tuesday 06 January 2009, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 12:39:34PM -0800, Gertjan van Wingerde wrote: > > On 01/06/09 18:47, Ivo van Doorn wrote: > > > On Tuesday 06 January 2009, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > > > >> On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 09:32:20AM -0800, Ivo van Doorn wrote: > > >> > > >>>>>> 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. > > >> > > > > > > Ok. > > > > > > Gertjan, do you know if there is any hardware with valid GEO data in the EEPROM? > > > > > > > As mentioned in my previous email, I do have devices that have valid GEO > > data in the EEPROM. So, we should be able to use that. > > Also, for the dual band cards, it does seem that at least the numerical > > values are similar for both bands (although I'm not sure that same > > numerical values means same regulatory domain). This is at least the > > case on all the cards that I own. > > If that's the case and since dual band cards will most likely have 2ghz support > why not just provide regulatory_hint() based on the 2ghz band all the time? Sounds like the most reasonable solution to me as well. Ivo