ath9k: Support 4.9Ghz channels on AR9580 adapter.
PATCH 1/1 ath9k: Support 4.9Ghz channels on AR9580 adapter.
From: Ben Greear <[email protected]>
NOTE: These channels must not be used in most regulatory domains unless you have a license from the FCC or similar!
A proper regulatory database is also required to actually use these channels.
--- drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/ath9k.h | 2 +- drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/common-init.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++------ drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/hw.h | 4 +-- 3 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/ath9k.h +1 -1
@@ -958,7 +958,7 @@ struct ath_softc {struct device *dev;struct survey_info *cur_survey; -struct survey_info survey[ATH9K_NUM_CHANNELS ]; +struct survey_info survey[ATH9K_MAX_NUM_CHANNELS ];struct tasklet_struct intr_tq;struct tasklet_struct bcon_tasklet;
drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/common-init.c +34 -8
71 lines not on this page · raw message
drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/hw.h +2 -2
@@ -73,7 +73,7 @@#define ATH9K_RSSI_BAD -128 -#define ATH9K_NUM_CHANNELS 38 +#define ATH9K_MAX_NUM_CHANNELS 47/* Register read/write primitives */ #define REG_WRITE (_ah, _reg, _val) \
@@ -776,7 +776,7 @@ struct ath_hw {struct ath9k_hw_version hw_version;struct ath9k_ops_config config;struct ath9k_hw_capabilities caps; -struct ath9k_channel channels[ATH9K_NUM_CHANNELS ]; +struct ath9k_channel channels[ATH9K_MAX_NUM_CHANNELS ];struct ath9k_channel *curchan;union {
Signature · 1 line
1.9.3
Quoted 9 lines · Ben Greear
From: Ben Greear <[email protected]>
NOTE: These channels must not be used in most regulatory domains unless you have a license from the FCC or similar!
A proper regulatory database is also required to actually use these channels.
Signed-off-by Ben Greear <[email protected]>
I feel that the license is a problem and this doesn't belong to the kernel. The patch has been dropped.
Signature · 2 lines
Sent by pwcli https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9086491/
Quoted 6 lines · Kalle Valo
Quoted 5 lines · Ben Greear
From: Ben Greear <[email protected]>
NOTE: These channels must not be used in most regulatory domains unless you have a license from the FCC or similar!
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 4 lines
A proper regulatory database is also required to actually use these channels.
Signed-off-by Ben Greear <[email protected]>I feel that the license is a problem and this doesn't belong to the kernel. The patch has been dropped.
It's not a lot different from having to be in normal FCC regulations w/regard to DFS channels, tx power, and such, but maybe having driver support is considered to make it too easy for users to hack around restrictions?
Another part of this is that Cisco APs, at least, use fractional center frequencies (4942.5, for instance) when using 5Mhz bandwidths on 4.9Ghz channels, and that requires more patches that I don't think I even bothered to post.
I'll keep this in my trees, someone needing it can just clone it and/or borrow patches as needed.
Thanks,
Ben
Signature · 2 lines
Ben Greear <[email protected]> Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
Hi Ben,
Quoted 20 lines · Ben Greear
Quoted 11 lines · Kalle Valo
Quoted 9 lines · Ben Greear
From: Ben Greear <[email protected]>
NOTE: These channels must not be used in most regulatory domains unless you have a license from the FCC or similar!
A proper regulatory database is also required to actually use these channels.
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 1 line
Signed-off-by Ben Greear <[email protected]>I feel that the license is a problem and this doesn't belong to the kernel.
The patch has been dropped.
Quoted 5 lines
It's not a lot different from having to be in normal FCC regulations w/regard to
DFS channels, tx power, and such, but maybe having driver support is considered to make it
too easy for users to hack around restrictions?
Maybe hide this behind CFG80211_CERTIFICATION_ONUS or equivalent? (Maybe a new symbol CFG80211_LICENSE_REQUIRED with big scary feds-will-come-knocking warnings in the help text?)
Thanks,
Signature · 4 lines
Julian Calaby Email: julian.calaby at gmail.com Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/julian.calaby/
Quoted 29 lines · Julian Calaby
Hi Ben,
Quoted 20 lines · Ben Greear
Quoted 11 lines · Kalle Valo
Quoted 9 lines · Ben Greear
From: Ben Greear <[email protected]>
NOTE: These channels must not be used in most regulatory domains unless you have a license from the FCC or similar!
A proper regulatory database is also required to actually use these channels.
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 1 line
Signed-off-by Ben Greear <[email protected]>I feel that the license is a problem and this doesn't belong to the kernel.
The patch has been dropped.Quoted 5 lines
It's not a lot different from having to be in normal FCC regulations w/regard to
DFS channels, tx power, and such, but maybe having driver support is considered to make it
too easy for users to hack around restrictions?
Quoted 3 lines
Maybe hide this behind
CFG80211_CERTIFICATION_ONUSor equivalent? (Maybe a new symbolCFG80211_LICENSE_REQUIREDwith big scary feds-will-come-knocking warnings in the help text?)
That would be fine with me. As I said though, there are more patches than this one needed for full features and interoperability.
The person that sent me the mac80211/wireless patches,
and hostapd for that matter, may be able to put something together for upstream, but I am not sure if they will have time.
I don't currently feel motivated enough to try to clean it all up and try to push it upstream myself.
Thanks,
Ben
Signature · 2 lines
Ben Greear <[email protected]> Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
PATCH 1/1 ath9k: Support 4.9Ghz channels on AR9580 adapter.
In reply to Julian CalabyFrom: Ben Greear <[email protected]>
NOTE: These channels must not be used in most regulatory domains unless you have a license from the FCC or similar!
A proper regulatory database is also required to actually use these channels.
--- drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/Kconfig | 19 +++++++++++ drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/ath9k.h | 2 +- drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/common-init.c | 49 +++++++++++++++++++++++----- drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/hw.h | 4 +-- 4 files changed, 63 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
Hi Kalle,
I've only done this work as I hate to see people's efforts go to waste and I feel that there's enough roadblocks in the way of actually using this functionality that casual idiots won't be able to.
I've tried to keep the code hidden by the Kconfig option as minimal as possible, however the #ifdef in ath9k_49ghz_capable() is arguably not required as returning true from that function still results in no action if the option is not enabled.
This is compile tested only as I cannot test this for real as I lack both the hardware and license required.
Thanks,
Julian Calaby
drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/Kconfig +19 -0
@@ -114,6 +114,25 @@ config ATH9K_DFS_CERTIFIED developed. At this point enabling this option won't do anything except increase code size. +config ATH9K_49_GHZ_CHAN + bool "Support 4.9Ghz public safety channels on some devices" + depends on ATH9K && CFG80211_CERTIFICATION_ONUS + default n + ---help--- + This option enables support for 4.9 GHz channels on AR9580. + + These are PUBLIC SAFETY CHANNELS and MUST NOT BE USED in most + regulatory domains UNLESS YOU HAVE A FULL LICENSE for their use from + your local radio regulator, e.g. the FCC or equivalent. Using these + channels without proper authorisation may result in serious legal + consequences. + + You will also have to build a regulatory database with these channels + enabled to actually use them. + + If you are a distro kernel builder or have any doubt whatsoever about + your legal ability to use these channels, say N. + config ATH9K_DYNACK bool "Atheros ath9k ACK timeout estimation algorithm (EXPERIMENTAL)" depends on ATH9K
drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/ath9k.h +1 -1
@@ -954,7 +954,7 @@ struct ath_softc {struct device *dev;struct survey_info *cur_survey; -struct survey_info survey[ATH9K_NUM_CHANNELS ]; +struct survey_info survey[ATH9K_MAX_NUM_CHANNELS ];struct tasklet_struct intr_tq;struct tasklet_struct bcon_tasklet;
drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/common-init.c +42 -8
79 lines not on this page · raw message
drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/hw.h +2 -2
@@ -73,7 +73,7 @@#define ATH9K_RSSI_BAD -128 -#define ATH9K_NUM_CHANNELS 38 +#define ATH9K_MAX_NUM_CHANNELS 47/* Register read/write primitives */ #define REG_WRITE (_ah, _reg, _val) \
@@ -777,7 +777,7 @@ struct ath_hw {struct ath9k_hw_version hw_version;struct ath9k_ops_config config;struct ath9k_hw_capabilities caps; -struct ath9k_channel channels[ATH9K_NUM_CHANNELS ]; +struct ath9k_channel channels[ATH9K_MAX_NUM_CHANNELS ];struct ath9k_channel *curchan;union {
Signature · 1 line
2.8.1
PATCH 1/1 ath9k: Support 4.9Ghz channels on AR9580 adapter.
Quoted 4 lines · Julian Calaby
I've only done this work as I hate to see people's efforts go to waste and I feel that there's enough roadblocks in the way of actually using this functionality that casual idiots won't be able to.
Are these really ready to go to the upstream kernel in this state and without the other changes that would be needed to operate correctly? What is the use case for these and how have these been tested?
Quoted 2 lines
This is compile tested only as I cannot test this for real as I lack both the hardware and license required.
I don't think this is sufficient when touching this type of area. I would not apply these without proper testing and full set of functionality being available. I see no point in ath9k defining additional channels if all those new channels can cause is harm and not correct functionality. This channel list addition looks like the easiest part to handle compared to the other patches needed for 4.9 GHz and this would be the last patch on my list to get accepted..
Quoted 4 lines
drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/common-init.c +3
-0+#ifdef ATH9K_49_GHZ_CHAN +/* 4.9Ghz channels, public safety channels, license is required in US +* and most other regulatory domains!
drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/common-init.c static const struct ieee80211_channel ath9k_5ghz_chantable[] = { · line 102
Quoted 10 lines
drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/common-init.c +10
-0+*/ +CHAN5G (4915 ,38 ),/* Channel 183 */ +CHAN5G (4920 ,39 ),/* Channel 184 */ +CHAN5G (4925 ,40 ),/* Channel 185 */ +CHAN5G (4935 ,41 ),/* Channel 187 */ +CHAN5G (4940 ,42 ),/* Channel 188 */ +CHAN5G (4945 ,43 ),/* Channel 189 */ +CHAN5G (4960 ,44 ),/* Channel 192 */ +CHAN5G (4970 ,45 ),/* Channel 194 */ + CHAN5G(4980, 46), /* Channel 196 */
Where are these channels defined and are these really correct frequencies for them? Please note that many of the 4.9 GHz channels have channel starting frequencies like 4.9375 GHz and 4.0025 GHz, i.e., fractional MHz.. While US public safety may not have all those cases, even there are some 0.5 MHz cases. In addition, those channel numbers sound more like some of the channels defined in Japan rather than US public safety operating class. In addition, some of these channels seem to be outside the US public safety range.
Is this trying to add 4.9 GHz channels in general for multiple different use cases? And if so, what are those use cases? Or is this only for some public safety cases? And if so, for which regulatory domains?
To be frank, I really don't see how this would be even close to a state that should be accepted into the upstream tree.
Signature · 1 line
Jouni Malinen PGP id EFC895FA
PATCH 1/1 ath9k: Support 4.9Ghz channels on AR9580 adapter.
Hi Jouni,
Quoted 9 lines · Jouni Malinen
Quoted 4 lines · Julian Calaby
I've only done this work as I hate to see people's efforts go to waste and I feel that there's enough roadblocks in the way of actually using this functionality that casual idiots won't be able to.
Are these really ready to go to the upstream kernel in this state and without the other changes that would be needed to operate correctly? What is the use case for these and how have these been tested?
This patch is a edited version (adding the Kconfig option) of Ben's patch. I picked it up as he seemed to have given up on it and I could see nothing directly wrong with the patch.
Quoted 10 lines
Quoted 2 lines
This is compile tested only as I cannot test this for real as I lack both the hardware and license required.
I don't think this is sufficient when touching this type of area. I would not apply these without proper testing and full set of functionality being available. I see no point in ath9k defining additional channels if all those new channels can cause is harm and not correct functionality. This channel list addition looks like the easiest part to handle compared to the other patches needed for 4.9 GHz and this would be the last patch on my list to get accepted..
It isn't, Ben himself has said that fractional MHz need to be supported for this to be 100% correct, however I believe that defining the channels is minimally sufficient for his purposes. I do know he's done more work than this, however I can't pick that up as getting it ready for upstream requires testing I can't do.
Quoted 23 lines
Quoted 4 lines
drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/common-init.c +3
-0+#ifdef ATH9K_49_GHZ_CHAN +/* 4.9Ghz channels, public safety channels, license is required in US +* and most other regulatory domains! drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/common-init.c static const struct ieee80211_channel ath9k_5ghz_chantable[] = { · line 102
Quoted 10 lines
drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/common-init.c +10
-0+*/ +CHAN5G (4915 ,38 ),/* Channel 183 */ +CHAN5G (4920 ,39 ),/* Channel 184 */ +CHAN5G (4925 ,40 ),/* Channel 185 */ +CHAN5G (4935 ,41 ),/* Channel 187 */ +CHAN5G (4940 ,42 ),/* Channel 188 */ +CHAN5G (4945 ,43 ),/* Channel 189 */ +CHAN5G (4960 ,44 ),/* Channel 192 */ +CHAN5G (4970 ,45 ),/* Channel 194 */ + CHAN5G(4980, 46), /* Channel 196 */Where are these channels defined and are these really correct frequencies for them? Please note that many of the 4.9 GHz channels have channel starting frequencies like 4.9375 GHz and 4.0025 GHz, i.e., fractional MHz.. While US public safety may not have all those cases, even there are some 0.5 MHz cases. In addition, those channel numbers sound more like some of the channels defined in Japan rather than US public safety operating class. In addition, some of these channels seem to be outside the US public safety range.
PATCH 1/1 ath9k: Support 4.9Ghz channels on AR9580 adapter.
In reply to Jouni MalinenQuoted 9 lines · Jouni Malinen
Quoted 4 lines · Julian Calaby
I've only done this work as I hate to see people's efforts go to waste and I feel that there's enough roadblocks in the way of actually using this functionality that casual idiots won't be able to.
Are these really ready to go to the upstream kernel in this state and without the other changes that would be needed to operate correctly? What is the use case for these and how have these been tested?
More patches are needed to make this work properly. My full patchset, with modifications to supplicant, *has* been tested, including against a Cisco AP running 5Mhz channels.
Quoted 27 lines
Quoted 2 lines
This is compile tested only as I cannot test this for real as I lack both the hardware and license required.
I don't think this is sufficient when touching this type of area. I would not apply these without proper testing and full set of functionality being available. I see no point in ath9k defining additional channels if all those new channels can cause is harm and not correct functionality. This channel list addition looks like the easiest part to handle compared to the other patches needed for 4.9 GHz and this would be the last patch on my list to get accepted..
Quoted 4 lines
drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/common-init.c +3
-0+#ifdef ATH9K_49_GHZ_CHAN +/* 4.9Ghz channels, public safety channels, license is required in US +* and most other regulatory domains! drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/common-init.c static const struct ieee80211_channel ath9k_5ghz_chantable[] = { · line 102
Quoted 10 lines
drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/common-init.c +10
-0+*/ +CHAN5G (4915 ,38 ),/* Channel 183 */ +CHAN5G (4920 ,39 ),/* Channel 184 */ +CHAN5G (4925 ,40 ),/* Channel 185 */ +CHAN5G (4935 ,41 ),/* Channel 187 */ +CHAN5G (4940 ,42 ),/* Channel 188 */ +CHAN5G (4945 ,43 ),/* Channel 189 */ +CHAN5G (4960 ,44 ),/* Channel 192 */ +CHAN5G (4970 ,45 ),/* Channel 194 */ + CHAN5G(4980, 46), /* Channel 196 */
Quoted 8 lines
Where are these channels defined and are these really correct frequencies for them? Please note that many of the 4.9 GHz channels have channel starting frequencies like 4.9375 GHz and 4.0025 GHz, i.e., fractional MHz.. While US public safety may not have all those cases, even there are some 0.5 MHz cases. In addition, those channel numbers sound more like some of the channels defined in Japan rather than US public safety operating class. In addition, some of these channels seem to be outside the US public safety range.
I got these from WiKi pedia. There is a later patch that adds the 5Mhz channels that Cisco uses. I figured that since this is all restricted anyway, that users of it would know how to make it work (and they would have to hack regdb in order to use any of them anyway).
Quoted 6 lines
Is this trying to add 4.9 GHz channels in general for multiple different use cases? And if so, what are those use cases? Or is this only for some public safety cases? And if so, for which regulatory domains?
To be frank, I really don't see how this would be even close to a state that should be accepted into the upstream tree.
It was a starting point, and posted mainly to let folks know how to get started.
As I said, I don't have interest in trying to push all the changes upstream, but they are in my kernel tree on dmz2.candelatech.com and hostap tree on github, so maybe someone who has interest in dealing with upstreaming them can take them over.
Thanks,
Ben
Signature · 2 lines
Ben Greear <[email protected]> Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
PATCH 1/1 ath9k: Support 4.9Ghz channels on AR9580 adapter.
In reply to Jouni MalinenQuoted 9 lines · Jouni Malinen
Quoted 4 lines · Julian Calaby
I've only done this work as I hate to see people's efforts go to waste and I feel that there's enough roadblocks in the way of actually using this functionality that casual idiots won't be able to.
Are these really ready to go to the upstream kernel in this state and without the other changes that would be needed to operate correctly? What is the use case for these and how have these been tested?
So far as I know the use case for these is to make it possible to build open source wifi systems that enable emergency services. This strikes me as a worthy goal.