Re: Problems with regulatory domain support and BCM43224

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

On 03/08/2012 10:06 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Arend van Spriel<arend@broadcom.com>  wrote:
>> On 03/08/2012 09:07 PM, Seth Forshee wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 11:51:03AM -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Quan, David<dquan@qca.qualcomm.com>
>>>>   wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I think there is to it more than SW.
>>>>> Where ever you get this card, is the card tested and regulatory approved
>>>>> for those countries, DFS or not?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Seth, what driver are you using? I know you are using a BCM43224 card.
>>>
>>>
>>> brcmsmac
>>>
>>>>> It is possible that this card is only regulatory tested for non DFS
>>>>> channels, but now you enable them for passive.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's a good point.
>>>>
>>>>> This means that yes, you are save and not violate DFS rules because you
>>>>> are in passive mode. However, you are in complete violation if the STA finds
>>>>> an AP on that DFS channel and then connects and transmits as this STA is not
>>>>> allow to transmit on that channel since it is not approved.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If the driver being used is a supported vendor driver then I'll punt
>>>> this to the vendor (Broadcom). If this is the reversed engineered
>>>> driver (b43) that Broadcom to this day seems to blindly ignore even
>>>> for regulatory, then I'm happy to recommend based on your input to
>>>> leave the regulatory domain as-is given that we cannot guarantee what
>>>> the vendor meant as they have not done any work on releasing either
>>>> documentation or code to help with their regulatory situation.
>>>
>>>
>>> It would be nice if Broadcom could weigh in. Cc-ing Arend.
>>
>>
>> Hi, Seth
>>
>> Noticed your email yesterday, but did not get to chime into the
>> conversation. brcmsmac does indeed provide a regulatory hint, which is
>> either from SPROM or hard-coded to "US". Since "X0" is not a known
>> regulatory domain for crda it does not make sense to pass it as a regulatory
>> hint. However, the "full" story is told on linuxwireless.org (see [1]).
>
> The Linux kernel allows you to define custom regulatory domains, the
> ath module uses these, it defines 13 of them. You can review that code
> for an example of how to use them. So your X0 can still be used, you
> just have to define the data structure.
>

Thanks, Luis

I will dive into that.

Gr. AvS