[Fwd: please don't regress ath5k.h]
sorry for sending twice, accidentally sent to owner instead of list...
wireless-testing.git/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k/ath5k.h
/* TODO: Clean up channel debuging -doesn't work anyway- and start
* working on reg. control code using all available eeprom information
* -rev. engineering needed- */
#define CHAN_DEBUG 0
I recently saw this additional comment added to wireless-testing.git and it has me a bit concerned. I use this feature for a specific patch set that I maintain and it would break it pretty bad to remove this. I don't believe I need all of the features that chan_debug provides, but when I set chan_debug to 0 it severely limits the number of channels that I can set the driver to. I currently maintain a patch that supports 471 channels for atheros a/b/g cards and without chan_debug 1 it simply cuts the top channels off (because it isn't able to have that many channels). It is my opinion that the driver should support what the hardware supports and the regulatory requirements should be handled by crda as expected, I will submit some patches to this effect asap but in the mean time please do not remove chan_debug without enabling support for at least 471 channels to be stored (and it would be cool to cc me on that patch so I can follow it and make sure it works for me).
Thanks,
Rick Farina
PS> Please note, this is not meant to start a discussion about adding in addition channels that may or may not be legal, I promise I'll start that discussion next, but this mail is to request that a feature I'm not using not be removed from the driver breaking my work. Thanks.
Hi.
Quoted 3 lines · Richard Farina
I recently saw this additional comment added to wireless-testing.git and it has me a bit concerned. I use this feature for a specific patch set that I maintain and it would break it pretty bad to remove this.
Just an idea: what prevents you to add a patch to that patchset that reenables the amount of code you require from the CHAN_DEBUG stuff should it be removed upstream?
Bye, Mike
Quoted 10 lines · Michael Renzmann
Hi.
Quoted 3 lines · Richard Farina
I recently saw this additional comment added to wireless-testing.git and it has me a bit concerned. I use this feature for a specific patch set that I maintain and it would break it pretty bad to remove this.
Just an idea: what prevents you to add a patch to that patchset that reenables the amount of code you require from the
CHAN_DEBUGstuff should it be removed upstream?
Seconded, upstream should remove all the junk that it doesn't directly need.
johannes
Quoted 15 lines · Johannes Berg
Quoted 4 lines · Michael Renzmann
Hi.
Richard Farina wrote:
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 4 lines
I recently saw this additional comment added to wireless-testing.git and it has me a bit concerned. I use this feature for a specific patch set that I maintain and it would break it pretty bad to remove this.
Just an idea: what prevents you to add a patch to that patchset that reenables the amount of code you require from the
CHAN_DEBUGstuff should it be removed upstream?
Quoted 5 lines
Seconded, upstream should remove all the junk that it doesn't directly need.
johannes
I actually don't have a problem with removing chan_debug, I was merely requesting that the size hack it enables not be removed.
More specifically in base.h I believe the code I specifically require is:
#if CHAN_DEBUG
#define ATH_CHAN_MAX (26+26+26+200+200)
#else
#define ATH_CHAN_MAX (14+14+14+252+20)
#endif
When removing chan_debug just please leave the higher max. To be honest I don't know for sure what this code means but since enabling it fixes my patch it is clearly required. There is no reason to be removing this as I am hoping to push a few patches upstream to properly support the capabilities of the hardware.
Thanks,
Rick
Quoted 5 lines · Richard Farina
I actually don't have a problem with removing
chan_debug, I was merely requesting that the size hack it enables not be removed.More specifically in
base.hI believe the code I specifically require is:
Quoted 8 lines
#if
CHAN_DEBUG
#defineATH_CHAN_MAX(26+26+26+200+200)
#else
#defineATH_CHAN_MAX(14+14+14+252+20)
#endifWhen removing
chan_debugjust please leave the higher max.
I would actually prefer to reduce this number _way_ down to something reasonable in the upstream kernel. ath5k should not really register more than channels 1-14 in 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz channels that are really used (i.e., only every fourth and only at ISM bands). The maximum number would be somewhere closer to 40 than 500..
If you have a license to use other frequencies, you can take care of that with your own private patches, but the upstream kernel should not do that. Channels in 2.3 GHz or 2.5 GHz or many of the 5 GHz areas that are currently registered do not really belong here in the upstream kernel no matter what the hardware might be capable of doing.
Signature · 1 line
Jouni Malinen PGP id EFC895FA
Quoted 23 lines · Jouni Malinen
Quoted 4 lines · Richard Farina
I actually don't have a problem with removing
chan_debug, I was merely requesting that the size hack it enables not be removed.More specifically in
base.hI believe the code I specifically require is:Quoted 9 lines
#if
CHAN_DEBUG
#defineATH_CHAN_MAX(26+26+26+200+200)
#else
#defineATH_CHAN_MAX(14+14+14+252+20)
#endifWhen removing
chan_debugjust please leave the higher max.I would actually prefer to reduce this number _way_ down to something reasonable in the upstream kernel. ath5k should not really register more than channels 1-14 in 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz channels that are really used (i.e., only every fourth and only at ISM bands). The maximum number would be somewhere closer to 40 than 500..
Quoted 7 lines
If you have a license to use other frequencies, you can take care of that with your own private patches, but the upstream kernel should not do that. Channels in 2.3 GHz or 2.5 GHz or many of the 5 GHz areas that are currently registered do not really belong here in the upstream kernel no matter what the hardware might be capable of doing.
Your response to my request seems a bit flawed in my eyes. Drivers are supposed to run the hardware, we have crda to handle limiting the device back to to what is legal in your area. I'm sure there are places where it is legal to use 2192MHz and even if not, look at the driver, it has a max of 2732MHz set in the driver (for the .11b/g radio), clearly the person who wrote that agrees that drivers should support the hardware.
Honestly if you want to argue the legality I purposely posted an RFC for that, this change (and this email thread) is to stop a regression that would cause the hardware to no longer be fully and properly supported.
Yes, I can maintain my own personal patches to all of the drivers in the kernel (as a matter of fact I likely do) but this kind of thing belongs in the kernel, we are discussing hardware support, nothing more. Limiting the driver to enforce some random regulatory domain is pointless and against kernel policy as reg domain enforcement is supposed to be handled by crda or oldreg.
Thanks,
Rick
Quoted 35 lines · Richard Farina
Quoted 26 lines · Jouni Malinen
Quoted 6 lines · Richard Farina
I actually don't have a problem with removing
chan_debug, I was merely
requesting that the size hack it enables not be removed.More specifically in
base.hI believe the code I specifically require is:Quoted 9 lines
#if
CHAN_DEBUG
#defineATH_CHAN_MAX(26+26+26+200+200)
#else
#defineATH_CHAN_MAX(14+14+14+252+20)
#endifWhen removing
chan_debugjust please leave the higher max.I would actually prefer to reduce this number _way_ down to something reasonable in the upstream kernel. ath5k should not really register more than channels 1-14 in 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz channels that are really used (i.e., only every fourth and only at ISM bands). The maximum number would be somewhere closer to 40 than 500..
Quoted 7 lines
If you have a license to use other frequencies, you can take care of that with your own private patches, but the upstream kernel should not do that. Channels in 2.3 GHz or 2.5 GHz or many of the 5 GHz areas that are currently registered do not really belong here in the upstream kernel no matter what the hardware might be capable of doing.
Quoted 3 lines
Your response to my request seems a bit flawed in my eyes. Drivers are supposed to run the hardware, we have crda to handle limiting the device back to to what is legal in your area.
CRDA does indeed handle proper regulatory rules for a country however keep in mind drivers still need to use the data it is calibrated for. So although the radio can technically use certain frequency ranges you will find only find calibrated data for the device's targeted EEPROM settings and for its world roaming capabilities.
Quoted 4 lines
I'm sure there are places where it
is legal to use 2192MHz and even if not, look at the driver, it has a max of 2732MHz set in the driver (for the .11b/g radio), clearly the person who wrote that agrees that drivers should support the hardware.
Please send patches to the wireless regulatory database if such places do exist and please provide documentation of such findings:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/linville/wireless-regdb.git
Once we have listed a country with these settings then it makes sense to add it to the database and to the card's capabilities. Keep in mind that the EEPROM will always be respected though (patches pending).
Quoted 3 lines
Honestly if you want to argue the legality I purposely posted an RFC for that, this change (and this email thread) is to stop a regression that would cause the hardware to no longer be fully and properly supported.
This part is certainly important, and is greatly appreciated.
Quoted 3 lines
Yes, I can maintain my own personal patches to all of the drivers in the kernel (as a matter of fact I likely do) but this kind of thing belongs in the kernel,
What belongs in the kernel is driver components to make your 802.11 work. The arguments used here are similar to that of disagreeing with easily allowing mac80211 to allow APs to operate without proper power save implementation.
Quoted 1 line
we are discussing hardware support, nothing more.
Yes however the channels must be registered too and the EEPROM must be respected. More work on that area is in the right direction.
Quoted 4 lines
Limiting the
driver to enforce some random regulatory domain is pointless and against kernel policy as reg domain enforcement is supposed to be handled by crda or oldreg.
oldreg is just that -- old, and it will be removed. It was there to help with the migration and to account for the fact distributions may not have CRDA packaged yet. Drivers should register channels that make sense to support for 802.11, not every single channel a radio is capable of tuning into. If not you'd be seeing the channel list growing for other drivers as well.
Luis
Quoted 42 lines · Luis R. Rodriguez
Quoted 35 lines · Richard Farina
Quoted 25 lines · Jouni Malinen
Quoted 5 lines · Richard Farina
I actually don't have a problem with removing
chan_debug, I was merely
requesting that the size hack it enables not be removed.More specifically in
base.hI believe the code I specifically require is:Quoted 10 lines
#if
CHAN_DEBUG
#defineATH_CHAN_MAX(26+26+26+200+200)
#else
#defineATH_CHAN_MAX(14+14+14+252+20)
#endifWhen removing
chan_debugjust please leave the higher max.I would actually prefer to reduce this number _way_ down to something reasonable in the upstream kernel. ath5k should not really register more than channels 1-14 in 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz channels that are really used (i.e., only every fourth and only at ISM bands). The maximum number would be somewhere closer to 40 than 500..
Quoted 8 lines
If you have a license to use other frequencies, you can take care of that with your own private patches, but the upstream kernel should not do that. Channels in 2.3 GHz or 2.5 GHz or many of the 5 GHz areas that are currently registered do not really belong here in the upstream kernel no matter what the hardware might be capable of doing.
Quoted 4 lines
Your response to my request seems a bit flawed in my eyes. Drivers are supposed to run the hardware, we have crda to handle limiting the device back to to what is legal in your area.
Quoted 7 lines
CRDA does indeed handle proper regulatory rules for a country however keep in mind drivers still need to use the data it is calibrated for. So although the radio can technically use certain frequency ranges you will find only find calibrated data for the device's targeted EEPROM settings and for its world roaming capabilities.
Considering the fact that multiple companies sell Atheros wireless cards that support 4.9GHz and even down to 4.4GHz I'm going to guess that the hardware is capable just fine. If it provides poor performance in testing then so be it, but right now, it looks pretty clean on the spectrum analyzer from where I was sitting the day I did my testing.
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 5 lines
I'm sure there are places where it
is legal to use 2192MHz and even if not, look at the driver, it has a max of 2732MHz set in the driver (for the .11b/g radio), clearly the person who wrote that agrees that drivers should support the hardware.
Quoted 10 lines
Please send patches to the wireless regulatory database if such places do exist and please provide documentation of such findings:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/linville/wireless-regdb.gitOnce we have listed a country with these settings then it makes sense to add it to the database and to the card's capabilities. Keep in mind that the EEPROM will always be respected though (patches pending).
This seems kind of silly, I was purposely avoiding updating crda because I'm sure that if I do 99% of the people that use these frequencies will be breaking the law. At your request, I will send my suggested change set to wireless-regdb. I only know about the USA but I'm sure if I google hard enough I can expand it at a later time.
Quoted 19 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Honestly if you want to argue the legality I purposely posted an RFC for that, this change (and this email thread) is to stop a regression that would cause the hardware to no longer be fully and properly supported.
This part is certainly important, and is greatly appreciated.
Quoted 4 lines
Yes, I can maintain my own personal patches to all of the drivers in the kernel (as a matter of fact I likely do) but this kind of thing belongs in the kernel,
What belongs in the kernel is driver components to make your 802.11 work. The arguments used here are similar to that of disagreeing with easily allowing mac80211 to allow APs to operate without proper power save implementation.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 2 lines
we are discussing hardware support, nothing more.
Yes however the channels must be registered too and the EEPROM must be respected. More work on that area is in the right direction.
I never said anything about hacking around the eeprom, nor did I even mention allowing people to tx on the channels I am adding. Frankly I'd like to see half of what I do remain out of kernel because of the obvious problem of abuse, the changes I have outlined so far belong in the kernel to allow the hardware to operate to it's full extent.
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Limiting the
driver to enforce some random regulatory domain is pointless and against kernel policy as reg domain enforcement is supposed to be handled by crda or oldreg.
Quoted 8 lines
oldreg is just that -- old, and it will be removed. It was there to help with the migration and to account for the fact distributions may not have CRDA packaged yet. Drivers should register channels that make sense to support for 802.11, not every single channel a radio is capable of tuning into. If not you'd be seeing the channel list growing for other drivers as well.
Exactly why does 4400MHz not make sense to use 802.11 on in your opinion? NATO disagrees as they have adopted equipment such as this:
http://www.belairnetworks.com/solutions/armed_forces.cfm
wireless-regdb update coming up next...
Thanks,
Rick Farina
Quoted 3 lines
Luis
Quoted 5 lines · Richard Farina
Considering the fact that multiple companies sell Atheros wireless cards that support 4.9GHz and even down to 4.4GHz I'm going to guess that the hardware is capable just fine. If it provides poor performance in testing then so be it, but right now, it looks pretty clean on the spectrum analyzer from where I was sitting the day I did my testing.
IIRC the way some of these frequencies work with Ubiquity cards are to use the hardware's actual center of freqs andand these are then actually mapped internally to the radio's lower freqs. At least this is how I saw it working with the cards I had tried a while back.
Quoted 11 lines
Quoted 11 lines
Quoted 5 lines
I'm sure there are places where it
is legal to use 2192MHz and even if not, look at the driver, it has a max of 2732MHz set in the driver (for the .11b/g radio), clearly the person who wrote that agrees that drivers should support the hardware.Please send patches to the wireless regulatory database if such places do exist and please provide documentation of such findings:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/linville/wireless-regdb.git
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Once we have listed a country with these settings then it makes sense to add it to the database and to the card's capabilities. Keep in mind that the EEPROM will always be respected though (patches pending).
This seems kind of silly, I was purposely avoiding updating crda because I'm sure that if I do 99% of the people that use these frequencies will be breaking the law.
CRDA should have what *is* allowed for each country. Your driver then can use its EEPROM for proper settings for a country. A user can further enhance compliance by choosing the country he/she is in. What gets into the kernel is code to properly enable your device for what it is designed to do. What you end up doing later on (sharks with lasers on their head) is up to you.
Quoted 3 lines
At your request, I will send my suggested change
set to wireless-regdb. I only know about the USA but I'm sure if I google hard enough I can expand it at a later time.
Thanks.
Quoted 26 lines
Quoted 19 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Honestly if you want to argue the legality I purposely posted an RFC for that, this change (and this email thread) is to stop a regression that would cause the hardware to no longer be fully and properly supported.
This part is certainly important, and is greatly appreciated.
Quoted 4 lines
Yes, I can maintain my own personal patches to all of the drivers in the kernel (as a matter of fact I likely do) but this kind of thing belongs in the kernel,
What belongs in the kernel is driver components to make your 802.11 work. The arguments used here are similar to that of disagreeing with easily allowing mac80211 to allow APs to operate without proper power save implementation.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 2 lines
we are discussing hardware support, nothing more.
Yes however the channels must be registered too and the EEPROM must be respected. More work on that area is in the right direction.
Quoted 5 lines
I never said anything about hacking around the eeprom, nor did I even mention allowing people to tx on the channels I am adding. Frankly I'd like to see half of what I do remain out of kernel because of the obvious problem of abuse, the changes I have outlined so far belong in the kernel to allow the hardware to operate to it's full extent.
I beleive you are missing my point though. I recently reviewed ath9k regulatory for example and initially I was going to register every single 5MHz step on the radio as a possibly used frequency. This is not right because of the point Jouni mentions and a few others:
* Your active and passive scan will take a lot longer
* Calibrated data is tuned and tested for each standard channel the device has been tested for, not every frequency hop the device is capable of.
* If you have a custom solution you can customize the driver
* Custom solutions sometimes require 1-1 mapping of an intended frequency to a virtual frequency. To know exactly what frequency you really are operating requires customizations and patches for these type of devices.
What we want to support is standard 802.11 operation for the stanard user for the regulatory regions in the regulatory database. Experimenters and people with licenses to operate in non standard frequencies can go ahead and tweak the driver and support it as they see fit, specially if the devices have been properly calibrated to do so.
Quoted 14 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Limiting the
driver to enforce some random regulatory domain is pointless and against kernel policy as reg domain enforcement is supposed to be handled by crda or oldreg.Quoted 8 lines
oldreg is just that -- old, and it will be removed. It was there to help with the migration and to account for the fact distributions may not have CRDA packaged yet. Drivers should register channels that make sense to support for 802.11, not every single channel a radio is capable of tuning into. If not you'd be seeing the channel list growing for other drivers as well.
Quoted 3 lines
Exactly why does 4400MHz not make sense to use 802.11 on in your opinion? NATO disagrees as they have adopted equipment such as this:
http://www.belairnetworks.com/solutions/armed_forces.cfm
NATO is not a regulatory agency, the FCC and currently the rules to follow for the US follow Part 15 rules, not what a NATO document tells you. If you see information on Part 15 rules which indicate you cna use 4400 MHz then by all means do send a patch to the wireless-regdb and document your finding.
Luis
2008/11/24 Richard Farina <[email protected]>:
Quoted 38 lines
Quoted 19 lines · Johannes Berg
Quoted 6 lines · Michael Renzmann
Hi.
Quoted 1 line · Richard Farina
Quoted 9 lines
Quoted 4 lines
I recently saw this additional comment added to wireless-testing.git and it has me a bit concerned. I use this feature for a specific patch set that I maintain and it would break it pretty bad to remove this.
Just an idea: what prevents you to add a patch to that patchset that reenables the amount of code you require from the
CHAN_DEBUGstuff should it be removed upstream?Quoted 5 lines
Seconded, upstream should remove all the junk that it doesn't directly need.
johannes
I actually don't have a problem with removing
chan_debug, I was merely requesting that the size hack it enables not be removed.More specifically in
base.hI believe the code I specifically require is:#if
CHAN_DEBUG
#defineATH_CHAN_MAX(26+26+26+200+200)
#else
#defineATH_CHAN_MAX(14+14+14+252+20)
#endif
Quoted 8 lines
When removing
chan_debugjust please leave the higher max. To be honest I don't know for sure what this code means but since enabling it fixes my patch it is clearly required. There is no reason to be removing this as I am hoping to push a few patches upstream to properly support the capabilities of the hardware.Thanks,
Rick
CHAN_DEBUG is an option i used a lot of time ago while debuging channel flags on madwifi-old-openhal. When we switched to mac80211 and ath5k, this code got useless, it just changes the maximum number of channels the driver allocates and has nothing to do with debuging, that's why i've put that TODO there. If you just want to register more channels on mac80211, you can always change or redefine ATH_CHAN_MAX.
However have in mind that card supports (at it's best) 26 2.4GHz channels and nearly 250 (i think) 5Ghz channels (eg. with 5Mhz spacing) but we currently allocate much more (ATH_CHAN_MAX is huge) because in madwifi-old-openhal we had to separate b channels from g channels and gTurbo channels (so 3*26) etc (same for a /a turbo) which is nonsense.
So on the technical side this code is crap and i must clean it up asap :P even if we want to support all available hw frequencies we should at least allocate them one time, not 3 ! Also not all channels are actually available, synth might be able to tune to a wide range of frequencies but the whole card is not just the MAC/PHY chip. For example tuning your card to a frequency that hasn't been calibrated can (and probably will) result pretty bad performance and tx corruption due to mis-calibrated PHY. On extreme situations some other parts of your card (probably the power amplifier or parts of auto-gain control) might be permanently damaged, resulting a useless card (i have reports of fried cards while tuning them way out of range -eg 6Ghz).
We can't support anything like that upstream, the best we can do is provide a module option on ath5k to register all available hw channels on mac80211 (and then crda takes over) for users that want to experiment with different crda tables (eg. users that have licenses etc) and know what they are doing, but the default behavior should be to only register ISM channels to be on the safe side.
Signature · 3 lines
GPG ID: 0xD21DB2DB As you read this post global entropy rises. Have Fun ;-) Nick
Quoted 51 lines · Nick Kossifidis
2008/11/24 Richard Farina <[email protected]>:
Quoted 47 lines
Quoted 18 lines · Johannes Berg
Quoted 5 lines · Michael Renzmann
Hi.
Richard Farina wrote:
Quoted 10 lines
Quoted 5 lines
I recently saw this additional comment added to wireless-testing.git and it has me a bit concerned. I use this feature for a specific patch set that I maintain and it would break it pretty bad to remove this.
Just an idea: what prevents you to add a patch to that patchset that reenables the amount of code you require from the
CHAN_DEBUGstuff should it be removed upstream?Quoted 6 lines
Seconded, upstream should remove all the junk that it doesn't directly need.
johannes
I actually don't have a problem with removing
chan_debug, I was merely requesting that the size hack it enables not be removed.More specifically in
base.hI believe the code I specifically require is:#if
CHAN_DEBUG
#defineATH_CHAN_MAX(26+26+26+200+200)
#else
#defineATH_CHAN_MAX(14+14+14+252+20)
#endifWhen removing
chan_debugjust please leave the higher max. To be honest I don't know for sure what this code means but since enabling it fixes my patch it is clearly required. There is no reason to be removing this as I am hoping to push a few patches upstream to properly support the capabilities of the hardware.Thanks,
Rick
Thanks a lot, I've been waiting for you to give your opinion.
Quoted 8 lines
CHAN_DEBUGis an option i used a lot of time ago while debuging channel flags on madwifi-old-openhal. When we switched to mac80211 and ath5k, this code got useless, it just changes the maximum number of channels the driver allocates and has nothing to do with debuging, that's why i've put that TODO there. If you just want to register more channels on mac80211, you can always change or redefineATH_CHAN_MAX.
Considering the fact that I don't really understand how you have it laid now right now (I just know that I needed more) I certainly have no issues with you cleaning up the code, I am only requesting that while you are cleaning up you keep in mind that I'd like to be able to use all of the hardware that I bought and not 1/10th of it :-)
Quoted 3 lines
However have in mind that card supports (at it's best) 26 2.4GHz channels and nearly 250 (i think) 5Ghz channels (eg. with 5Mhz
I currently have 70 supported frequencies on the .11b/g radio and 241 on the .11a radio. I am 99% sure that there are more frequencies that can be set on the .11a radio, up to a maximum of 160 more is what I will be testing next time I have a decent spectrum analyzer near me.
Quoted 6 lines
spacing) but we currently allocate much more (
ATH_CHAN_MAXis huge) because in madwifi-old-openhal we had to separate b channels from g channels and gTurbo channels (so 3*26) etc (same for a /a turbo) which is nonsense.
I agree, that does sound like nonsense and a likely source of my confusion.
Quoted 4 lines
So on the technical side this code is crap and i must clean it up asap :P even if we want to support all available hw frequencies we should at least allocate them one time, not 3 ! Also not all channels are actually available, synth might be able to tune to a wide range of
Quoted 10 lines
frequencies but the whole card is not just the MAC/PHY chip. For example tuning your card to a frequency that hasn't been calibrated can (and probably will) result pretty bad performance and tx corruption due to mis-calibrated PHY. On extreme situations some other parts of your card (probably the power amplifier or parts of auto-gain control) might be permanently damaged, resulting a useless card (i have reports of fried cards while tuning them way out of range -eg 6Ghz).
Actually it was 6.1GHz, I know this because I'm pretty sure I was the one that reported the failure to you ;-)
Quoted 8 lines
We can't support anything like that upstream, the best we can do is provide a module option on ath5k to register all available hw channels on mac80211 (and then crda takes over) for users that want to experiment with different crda tables (eg. users that have licenses etc) and know what they are doing, but the default behavior should be to only register ISM channels to be on the safe side.
In my opinion it is best for the driver to support the full feature set of the hardware and as you suggested to allow crda to do it's job and enforce the reg domain. I would never expect oldreg or crda to allow you to set these crazy licensed frequencies by default, but the fact is, some of us are licensed and maintaining a driver patch for every wifi card I own (57 if you are interested) is a bit stupid when all I'm really doing is making the driver run the hardware. In the future it would of course be nice to allow registered and licensed users (Amateur radio community, etc) to use these cards as they are capable.
Honestly I'm not sure why so many are dead set against this, all I'm asking is for the driver to run the hardware properly so that I don't need to patch as many things. I don't expect my debug patches to crda to be added upstream, nor my cruel hack to old reg. The cards will remain as they are now, incapable of breaking the law, I'm not asking to change that.
Thanks,
Rick Farina
2008/11/24 Nick Kossifidis <[email protected]>:
Quoted 8 lines
CHAN_DEBUGis an option i used a lot of time ago while debuging channel flags on madwifi-old-openhal. When we switched to mac80211 and ath5k, this code got useless, it just changes the maximum number of channels the driver allocates and has nothing to do with debuging, that's why i've put that TODO there. If you just want to register* more channels on mac80211, you can always change or redefineATH_CHAN_MAX.
*Correction: allocate
ATH_CHAN_MAX has nothing to do with how many channels we register, it's jut used on base.h to set how many channels we 'll have on our channel array.
Signature · 3 lines
GPG ID: 0xD21DB2DB As you read this post global entropy rises. Have Fun ;-) Nick