Hi Dear backports Devs for driver brcmsmac,
Coming to the point, I want to lower the TX power of my BCM4313, under
the official values set by the regdom, to any special value I need.
So I'm trying to build such a "personal" patch, only for me, based on
latest backports v3.19 and latest Ubuntu.
Useless to say, "iwconfig <wlan> txpower" doesn't work, the resulting TX
power doesn't change.
I know it doesn't work because I can measure the RSSI coming out from
the BCM4313, using another device: it doesn't change, whatever value I
set.
So, I gave a look at the code for the brcmsmac module, and I think I
found the location where the TX power is *finally* set: inside
wlc_lcnphy_txpower_recalc_target (phy_lcn.c), call to
wlc_lcnphy_set_target_tx_pwr.
AFAIU, in that function a table of tx_power_offsets (calculated by
another function) is written in the device EPROM registry, and the TX
power is set to the relative minimum.
Now, my question: is that the right way to change effectively the TX
power?
I need to ask You a confirmation about that, if that is correct, before
I start building my patch.
I don't want to frustrate my time developing in the wrong code, or
damage the device, or other issues... :)
Thank you for your attention, and looking forward your feedback.
--
http://www.fastmail.com - mmm... Fastmail...
Hi Dear brcmsmac Devs,
following up my previous email, since I didn't receive any feedback, I
took the trouble to test my understandings myself.
First of all, I want to report the following fact: the TX power is
blocked/fixed to 19dbm, no matter what local regdom or power setting.
If that is an issue or bug or else I leave the decision to you.
Another fact is that, the Windows driver for that same interface, is
capable to push the transceiver at least 10 RSSI points higher than
linux backports brcmsmac driver, which means it is *DO* possible to
change the TX power.
In my personal case I want to lower it, but even that is not possible:
no setting is working, neither changing the regdom (iw reg set) nor the
power (iwconfig wlan0 txpower, iw dev wlan0 set txpower fixed, iw phy
wlan0 set txpower fixed).
Now, as for my tests, I just tried to hard-code few values into the
brcmsmac driver module, only to see if anything changes.
In details I zeroed the values of all tx_power_offsets in the table
populated in wlc_lcnphy_txpower_recalc_target (phy_lcn.c), and called
wlc_lcnphy_set_target_tx_pwr with a value of 40 (minor that 52, which is
the minimum I found debugging that function).
Again, nothing changed (even if further calls to
wlc_lcnphy_set_target_tx_pwr =40)
It is my wish to create a patch for that "issue", which I want first to
test here locally to me, and if working&interesting, I can propose it
for merging in next release.
But, AMOF, now I'm just stuck.
In case anybody feels like giving away any hint/feedback, I would have
few questions:
1) is it "brcmsmac" linux backports driver still supported or
deprecated?
2) if deprecated, what is the supported driver for BCM4313?
3) About my tests, was it correct zeroing all tx_power_offsets in the
table and call wlc_lcnphy_set_target_tx_pwr=40, to get a TX power less
that 19dbm?
4) if it was not correct, or partially correct, what am I missing or
doing wrong, in order to push the TX transceiver power less than 19dbm?
Thanks for your attention.
--
Nikita N.
[email protected]
On Sun, Feb 15, 2015, at 05:32 AM, Nikita N. wrote:
> Hi Dear backports Devs for driver brcmsmac,
> Coming to the point, I want to lower the TX power of my BCM4313, under
> the official values set by the regdom, to any special value I need.
> So I'm trying to build such a "personal" patch, only for me, based on
> latest backports v3.19 and latest Ubuntu.
> Useless to say, "iwconfig <wlan> txpower" doesn't work, the resulting TX
> power doesn't change.
> I know it doesn't work because I can measure the RSSI coming out from
> the BCM4313, using another device: it doesn't change, whatever value I
> set.
>
> So, I gave a look at the code for the brcmsmac module, and I think I
> found the location where the TX power is *finally* set: inside
> wlc_lcnphy_txpower_recalc_target (phy_lcn.c), call to
> wlc_lcnphy_set_target_tx_pwr.
> AFAIU, in that function a table of tx_power_offsets (calculated by
> another function) is written in the device EPROM registry, and the TX
> power is set to the relative minimum.
>
> Now, my question: is that the right way to change effectively the TX
> power?
> I need to ask You a confirmation about that, if that is correct, before
> I start building my patch.
> I don't want to frustrate my time developing in the wrong code, or
> damage the device, or other issues... :)
>
> Thank you for your attention, and looking forward your feedback.
>
> --
> http://www.fastmail.com - mmm... Fastmail...
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless"
> in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
http://www.fastmail.com - The professional email service
Hi Arend,
> brcmsmac does assure tx power is within regulatory limits by enforcing a
> world regulatory domain. So what is not supported is modifying tx power
> settings through user-space.
Yes, I believe that could be right, *a* world regulatory domain looks
indeed enforced, the USA one only, which is pre-set default inside
EEPROM registries device, isn't it?
> I know, but that driver is not fully open-source as it links in a binary
> blob.
AFAIK, also brcmsmac needs at least 2 firmware files to operate, without
those nothing works.
Isn't it the same concept?
> I totally lost track of this one. I am using brcmsmac in monitor mode
> using bcm43224 which captures 11n frames just fine. I will give it a try
> with a bcm4313. The assoc response in your capture shows undefined MCS
> set so maybe there really are no 11n MCS rates used (?).
If that was a suggestion about to purchase a bcm43224 or any other
Broadcom Corp. product, isn't really convincing, seen the overall
support quality Customers are experiencing in here...
About my capture file, in the case it was really incomplete someone
could have informed me at least a year ago.
But anyway no respectable QA Testing team needs a purchasing Customer to
help in verifying such enormous issue, isn't it?
> Our team consist of two man working full-time on the upstream linux
> drivers. So our "customer care" is something that we try to deal with on
> the side and admittedly things slip between the cracks.
Really, *TWO* men? Are you kidding? Is that how much Broadcom Corp.
values the Linux community?
Needles to remind, even if Linux users don't pay for the OS license as
Windows do, they do pay allright for any Broadcom hardware they
purchase!
Internet startups which sell a button on internet, they have Dev and QA
team 5 times bigger than that!
I sense a very gross capacity and resource planning competence issue in
here.
I kindly ask you, please forward that mail to your higher Managers, on
my personal behalf, Thanks.
--
http://www.fastmail.com - Same, same, but different...
(I don't know why I've been added on this e-mail chain, I'm not in any
way linked to broadcom or any of their drivers)
On 03/04/2015 09:39 AM, Nikita N. wrote:
> Dear Arend,
> as followup to my last inquiry, since it's passed more than 2 weeks, I'm
> afraid I didn't receive any answer.
> As from subject, I finally discovered that brcmsmac is not compliant to
> 802.11 regulations for BCM4313.
> So, as purchasing customer, and member of Linux users community, I try
> to propose my questions to you again now, 3 in total:
If it's not compliant to 802.11 Regulations, please state in what way
it's not compliant, and how to reproduce that. People will take lack of
compliance seriously. Read on for what I know about the various parts.
>
> 1) Regulatory domain - you wrote "brcmsmac does assure tx power is
> within regulatory limits by enforcing a world regulatory domain"
> That affirmation is *FALSE*.
> I spent the whole weekend putting brcmsmac under heavy trace, all
> functions, above all the phy ones.
> Some code "supposes" to enforce a regulatory domain, but the effect is
> total null.
> I tried recompile the regulatory domain database, those functions did
> not retrieve the new values.
> Whatever values I set for domain 00, the effect was null - BCM4313 kept
> functioning independently.
> The functions, phy and not, which are "supposed" to set the eeprom
> registries for regdomain enforce, have effect null - the BCM4313 kept
> functioning independently.
> I tried setting random numbers in those functions and registries, the
> effect was null - the BCM4313 kept functioning independently.
> At the edge of my frustration, I started commenting away from the code
> those whole phy functions, the effect was null again - the BCM4313 kept
> functioning independently.
> I don't know for what Broadcom hw device were written and *tested* those
> functions - but sure is, they do *NOT* work for BCM4313.
> Could you please explain how/where the BCM4313 is supposed to "enforcing
> a world regulatory domain" ?
The 'World regulatory domain' is a basic set of rules that you can
create by taking all of the rules of the world and joining them into 1
'Most Restricted' set of rules. It's likely that this is enforced in
the firmware and not in the driver. The reason that recompiling the
regulatory database has no effect is, the firmware probably has it's own
'determination' of what those rules are. If you want a device you can
tweak this stuff on (and possibly end up out of regulatory compliance),
find one that doesn't include it's own internal regulatory handling.
The World Regulatory Domain (00) was setup such that it should be legal
to use everywhere in the world.
>
> 2) MCS - 11n modulated frames are not detected in BCM4313 monitor mode -
> I informed you about this issue more than 1 year ago, and again 2 weeks
> ago.
> The issue still reproduces, and no sign of any fix.
> When/in what backports version, this issue is supposed to be fixed
> finally?
They likely have higher priority 'problems' on their list like getting
new hardware that doesn't work at all (for any use case) working. This
could be a firmware issue and not a driver issue, which would mean
they'd have to pass the issue to the firmware developers, who are also
likely working on whatever firmware management says they should be.
>
> 3) I explicitly purchased this BCM4313 already 1 year ago, with the
> following specs: 0x4313 rev 0x01 package 0x08, 3 cores ChipCommon,
> IEEE802.11 and PCIe.
> I have been searching for any technical datasheet specification document
> about BCM4313 on Broadcom website and others.
> Did not find any.
> Could you please send me a detailed technical datasheet specification
> document about BCM4313, for programming/dev purposes?
MOST chip manufacturers won't give you the detailed low level datasheets
for their wifi chips as often times you can make changes that cause the
hardware to transmit out of calibrated specs(and potentially damage
hardware) or outside of legal limits(and risk legal troubles).
>
> Thank you & Greetings
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015, at 01:03 AM, Nikita N. wrote:
>> Hi Arend,
>>
>>> brcmsmac does assure tx power is within regulatory limits by enforcing a
>>> world regulatory domain. So what is not supported is modifying tx power
>>> settings through user-space.
>>
>> Yes, I believe that could be right, *a* world regulatory domain looks
>> indeed enforced, the USA one only, which is pre-set default inside
>> EEPROM registries device, isn't it?
>>
>>> I know, but that driver is not fully open-source as it links in a binary
>>> blob.
>>
>> AFAIK, also brcmsmac needs at least 2 firmware files to operate, without
>> those nothing works.
>> Isn't it the same concept?
>>
>>> I totally lost track of this one. I am using brcmsmac in monitor mode
>>> using bcm43224 which captures 11n frames just fine. I will give it a try
>>> with a bcm4313. The assoc response in your capture shows undefined MCS
>>> set so maybe there really are no 11n MCS rates used (?).
>>
>> If that was a suggestion about to purchase a bcm43224 or any other
>> Broadcom Corp. product, isn't really convincing, seen the overall
>> support quality Customers are experiencing in here...
>> About my capture file, in the case it was really incomplete someone
>> could have informed me at least a year ago.
>> But anyway no respectable QA Testing team needs a purchasing Customer to
>> help in verifying such enormous issue, isn't it?
>>
>>> Our team consist of two man working full-time on the upstream linux
>>> drivers. So our "customer care" is something that we try to deal with on
>>> the side and admittedly things slip between the cracks.
>>
>> Really, *TWO* men? Are you kidding? Is that how much Broadcom Corp.
>> values the Linux community?
>> Needles to remind, even if Linux users don't pay for the OS license as
>> Windows do, they do pay allright for any Broadcom hardware they
>> purchase!
>> Internet startups which sell a button on internet, they have Dev and QA
>> team 5 times bigger than that!
>> I sense a very gross capacity and resource planning competence issue in
>> here.
>> I kindly ask you, please forward that mail to your higher Managers, on
>> my personal behalf, Thanks.
>>
>> --
>> http://www.fastmail.com - Same, same, but different...
>>
>
Dear Arend,
as followup to my last inquiry, since it's passed more than 2 weeks, I'm
afraid I didn't receive any answer.
As from subject, I finally discovered that brcmsmac is not compliant to
802.11 regulations for BCM4313.
So, as purchasing customer, and member of Linux users community, I try
to propose my questions to you again now, 3 in total:
1) Regulatory domain - you wrote "brcmsmac does assure tx power is
within regulatory limits by enforcing a world regulatory domain"
That affirmation is *FALSE*.
I spent the whole weekend putting brcmsmac under heavy trace, all
functions, above all the phy ones.
Some code "supposes" to enforce a regulatory domain, but the effect is
total null.
I tried recompile the regulatory domain database, those functions did
not retrieve the new values.
Whatever values I set for domain 00, the effect was null - BCM4313 kept
functioning independently.
The functions, phy and not, which are "supposed" to set the eeprom
registries for regdomain enforce, have effect null - the BCM4313 kept
functioning independently.
I tried setting random numbers in those functions and registries, the
effect was null - the BCM4313 kept functioning independently.
At the edge of my frustration, I started commenting away from the code
those whole phy functions, the effect was null again - the BCM4313 kept
functioning independently.
I don't know for what Broadcom hw device were written and *tested* those
functions - but sure is, they do *NOT* work for BCM4313.
Could you please explain how/where the BCM4313 is supposed to "enforcing
a world regulatory domain" ?
2) MCS - 11n modulated frames are not detected in BCM4313 monitor mode -
I informed you about this issue more than 1 year ago, and again 2 weeks
ago.
The issue still reproduces, and no sign of any fix.
When/in what backports version, this issue is supposed to be fixed
finally?
3) I explicitly purchased this BCM4313 already 1 year ago, with the
following specs: 0x4313 rev 0x01 package 0x08, 3 cores ChipCommon,
IEEE802.11 and PCIe.
I have been searching for any technical datasheet specification document
about BCM4313 on Broadcom website and others.
Did not find any.
Could you please send me a detailed technical datasheet specification
document about BCM4313, for programming/dev purposes?
Thank you & Greetings
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015, at 01:03 AM, Nikita N. wrote:
> Hi Arend,
>
> > brcmsmac does assure tx power is within regulatory limits by enforcing a
> > world regulatory domain. So what is not supported is modifying tx power
> > settings through user-space.
>
> Yes, I believe that could be right, *a* world regulatory domain looks
> indeed enforced, the USA one only, which is pre-set default inside
> EEPROM registries device, isn't it?
>
> > I know, but that driver is not fully open-source as it links in a binary
> > blob.
>
> AFAIK, also brcmsmac needs at least 2 firmware files to operate, without
> those nothing works.
> Isn't it the same concept?
>
> > I totally lost track of this one. I am using brcmsmac in monitor mode
> > using bcm43224 which captures 11n frames just fine. I will give it a try
> > with a bcm4313. The assoc response in your capture shows undefined MCS
> > set so maybe there really are no 11n MCS rates used (?).
>
> If that was a suggestion about to purchase a bcm43224 or any other
> Broadcom Corp. product, isn't really convincing, seen the overall
> support quality Customers are experiencing in here...
> About my capture file, in the case it was really incomplete someone
> could have informed me at least a year ago.
> But anyway no respectable QA Testing team needs a purchasing Customer to
> help in verifying such enormous issue, isn't it?
>
> > Our team consist of two man working full-time on the upstream linux
> > drivers. So our "customer care" is something that we try to deal with on
> > the side and admittedly things slip between the cracks.
>
> Really, *TWO* men? Are you kidding? Is that how much Broadcom Corp.
> values the Linux community?
> Needles to remind, even if Linux users don't pay for the OS license as
> Windows do, they do pay allright for any Broadcom hardware they
> purchase!
> Internet startups which sell a button on internet, they have Dev and QA
> team 5 times bigger than that!
> I sense a very gross capacity and resource planning competence issue in
> here.
> I kindly ask you, please forward that mail to your higher Managers, on
> my personal behalf, Thanks.
>
> --
> http://www.fastmail.com - Same, same, but different...
>
--
http://www.fastmail.com - Or how I learned to stop worrying and
love email again
Dear Arend,
> > I tried recompile the regulatory domain database, those functions did
> > not retrieve the new values.
> > Whatever values I set for domain 00, the effect was null - BCM4313 kept
> > functioning independently.
> That is exactly what should happen. The brcmsmac driver applies a
> so-called strict custom regulatory domain and does not follow any
> regulatory domain provisioning.
As I understand your words, the BCM4313 has a proprietary regdomain, a
so called "strict custom regulatory domain" buried in the firmware, and
finish.
That proprietary regdomain is applied when attaching brcmsmac Linux
driver.
But in other drivers, e.g. the wl driver, or ms-windows drivers all
versions, the BCM4313 doesn't apply that "strict custom regulatory
domain".
In all other drivers, the BCM4313 applies different regdomains and
relative power levels according to the system/OS.
So now, after your explanation, logic tells me, the BCM4313 regdomain is
locked only in the brcmsmac driver for Linux.
Instead it operates open and fully functional in the other drivers.
So now 3 more questions, if I'm allowed:
1) What is assuring that proprietary "strict custom regulatory domain"
is not obsolete/deprecated and compliant to 802.11 regulations?
2) Regulatory domains can by 802.11 regulation change dynamically within
time/country, why BCM4313 users are obliged to lock only on 1
proprietary regdomain?
3) Why BCM4313 is locked only for brcmsmac?
> > 2) MCS - 11n modulated frames are not detected in BCM4313 monitor mode -
> > I informed you about this issue more than 1 year ago, and again 2 weeks
> > ago.
> > The issue still reproduces, and no sign of any fix.
> > When/in what backports version, this issue is supposed to be fixed
> > finally?
> What is the deal about backports here. If there will be a fix it will be
> done upstream and eventually end up in a backports package. First need
> to root cause this issue.
So now 2 more questions, if I'm allowed:
4) Has been done any step so far, to root the cause of this issue?
5) Since I have spent money&time on that device, I would like at least
to monitor the work in progress done to root the cause of this issue -
how can I?
Thanks & Greetings
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015, at 10:01 AM, Arend van Spriel wrote:
> On 03/04/15 16:39, Nikita N. wrote:
> > Dear Arend,
> > as followup to my last inquiry, since it's passed more than 2 weeks, I'm
> > afraid I didn't receive any answer.
>
> Ok, you diverted my attention by presenting an absurd sense of reality.
> But let me put emotions aside and answer your questions below.
>
> > As from subject, I finally discovered that brcmsmac is not compliant to
> > 802.11 regulations for BCM4313.
> > So, as purchasing customer, and member of Linux users community, I try
> > to propose my questions to you again now, 3 in total:
> >
> > 1) Regulatory domain - you wrote "brcmsmac does assure tx power is
> > within regulatory limits by enforcing a world regulatory domain"
> > That affirmation is *FALSE*.
> > I spent the whole weekend putting brcmsmac under heavy trace, all
> > functions, above all the phy ones.
> > Some code "supposes" to enforce a regulatory domain, but the effect is
> > total null.
> > I tried recompile the regulatory domain database, those functions did
> > not retrieve the new values.
> > Whatever values I set for domain 00, the effect was null - BCM4313 kept
> > functioning independently.
>
> That is exactly what should happen. The brcmsmac driver applies a
> so-called strict custom regulatory domain and does not follow any
> regulatory domain provisioning.
>
> [87636.143361] cfg80211: Ignoring regulatory request set by core since
> the driver uses its own custom regulatory domain
>
> > The functions, phy and not, which are "supposed" to set the eeprom
> > registries for regdomain enforce, have effect null - the BCM4313 kept
> > functioning independently.
> > I tried setting random numbers in those functions and registries, the
> > effect was null - the BCM4313 kept functioning independently.
> > At the edge of my frustration, I started commenting away from the code
> > those whole phy functions, the effect was null again - the BCM4313 kept
> > functioning independently.
> > I don't know for what Broadcom hw device were written and *tested* those
> > functions - but sure is, they do *NOT* work for BCM4313.
> > Could you please explain how/where the BCM4313 is supposed to "enforcing
> > a world regulatory domain" ?
>
> It is done in firmware.
>
> > 2) MCS - 11n modulated frames are not detected in BCM4313 monitor mode -
> > I informed you about this issue more than 1 year ago, and again 2 weeks
> > ago.
> > The issue still reproduces, and no sign of any fix.
> > When/in what backports version, this issue is supposed to be fixed
> > finally?
>
> What is the deal about backports here. If there will be a fix it will be
> done upstream and eventually end up in a backports package. First need
> to root cause this issue.
>
> > 3) I explicitly purchased this BCM4313 already 1 year ago, with the
> > following specs: 0x4313 rev 0x01 package 0x08, 3 cores ChipCommon,
> > IEEE802.11 and PCIe.
> > I have been searching for any technical datasheet specification document
> > about BCM4313 on Broadcom website and others.
> > Did not find any.
> > Could you please send me a detailed technical datasheet specification
> > document about BCM4313, for programming/dev purposes?
>
> That is all proprietary information.
>
> Regards.
> Arend
>
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 17, 2015, at 01:03 AM, Nikita N. wrote:
> >> Hi Arend,
> >>
> >>> brcmsmac does assure tx power is within regulatory limits by enforcing a
> >>> world regulatory domain. So what is not supported is modifying tx power
> >>> settings through user-space.
> >>
> >> Yes, I believe that could be right, *a* world regulatory domain looks
> >> indeed enforced, the USA one only, which is pre-set default inside
> >> EEPROM registries device, isn't it?
> >>
> >>> I know, but that driver is not fully open-source as it links in a binary
> >>> blob.
> >>
> >> AFAIK, also brcmsmac needs at least 2 firmware files to operate, without
> >> those nothing works.
> >> Isn't it the same concept?
> >>
> >>> I totally lost track of this one. I am using brcmsmac in monitor mode
> >>> using bcm43224 which captures 11n frames just fine. I will give it a try
> >>> with a bcm4313. The assoc response in your capture shows undefined MCS
> >>> set so maybe there really are no 11n MCS rates used (?).
> >>
> >> If that was a suggestion about to purchase a bcm43224 or any other
> >> Broadcom Corp. product, isn't really convincing, seen the overall
> >> support quality Customers are experiencing in here...
> >> About my capture file, in the case it was really incomplete someone
> >> could have informed me at least a year ago.
> >> But anyway no respectable QA Testing team needs a purchasing Customer to
> >> help in verifying such enormous issue, isn't it?
> >>
> >>> Our team consist of two man working full-time on the upstream linux
> >>> drivers. So our "customer care" is something that we try to deal with on
> >>> the side and admittedly things slip between the cracks.
> >>
> >> Really, *TWO* men? Are you kidding? Is that how much Broadcom Corp.
> >> values the Linux community?
> >> Needles to remind, even if Linux users don't pay for the OS license as
> >> Windows do, they do pay allright for any Broadcom hardware they
> >> purchase!
> >> Internet startups which sell a button on internet, they have Dev and QA
> >> team 5 times bigger than that!
> >> I sense a very gross capacity and resource planning competence issue in
> >> here.
> >> I kindly ask you, please forward that mail to your higher Managers, on
> >> my personal behalf, Thanks.
> >>
> >> --
> >> http://www.fastmail.com - Same, same, but different...
> >>
> >
>
--
http://www.fastmail.com - mmm... Fastmail...
Dear Arend,
thanks for answering, unfortunately the answers open new questions
indeed, if I may.
> > 1) What is assuring that proprietary "strict custom regulatory domain"
> > is not obsolete/deprecated and compliant to 802.11 regulations?
> This is a very hypothetical question. If regulation would indeed change
> in such way we would have to release new firmware.
That is not hypothetical at all, since we do *NOT* know what that
proprietary regdomain is enforcing.
That "strict custom regulatory domain" is proprietary Broadcom, hence
nobody knows what is written inside it, following all sad&known
considerations that Pat Erley explained (that is also the answer to you
Pat)
Now, to verify that such proprietary regdomain is enforcing a legal and
compliant regdomain, we should know it's details.
Question, is it possible to know how/what is written in that proprietary
regdomain inside the firmware?
> > 2) Regulatory domains can by 802.11 regulation change dynamically within
> > time/country, why BCM4313 users are obliged to lock only on 1
> > proprietary regdomain?
> This is not mandatory. Using 1 restricted world regulatory domain is
> fine as well as Pat Erley explained in his response.
Sorry, what is not mandatory?
It is not mandatory that users are obliged to lock only on 1 proprietary
regdomain?
Of course it is not, it is not fair nor compliant to any regulations I
know of - do you?
It is not mandatory that 802.11 regulations change? sure, but they
change, indeed.
It is not mandatory regdomains rules change? sure, but they change,
indeed.
> > 4) Has been done any step so far, to root the cause of this issue?
> I did hunt down a 4313 to do so and put it in my test laptop.
Thank you very much! :)
In the meantime, if you could please verify a possible solution coming
now to my mind.
I understood that Broadcom management doesn't want to give power
controls to user.
Very sad personally, but I don't see any help to that coming from you
(your managers).
So, maybe, do BCM4313 has more than 1 special proprietary preset
regdomain buried in the firmware?
If yes, it would be great if you could tell us (programmers) how we can
switch to any of those other preset regdomains.
So that we could test them, and find the one which best conform to our
local/country regulation.
It seems to me a fair compromise for solving that issue, isn't?
> > 5) Since I have spent money&time on that device, I would like at least
> > to monitor the work in progress done to root the cause of this issue -
> > how can I?
>
> You could create a bugzilla item on kernel.org.
Sure will do.
As soon as someone from Broadcom QA Testing Team, will find that the
root cause of that issue depends on Linux kernel.
I guess I already did my best to try debugging and solving for *free* a
Broadcom issue which: 1) doesn't depend on me, 2) is locked down in a
proprietary firmware, 3) is protected by secrecy of proprietary Broadcom
informations.
Thanks & Greetings.
--
Nikita N.
[email protected]
On Thu, Mar 5, 2015, at 01:41 AM, Arend van Spriel wrote:
> On 03/05/15 09:23, Nikita N. wrote:
> > Dear Arend,
> >
> >>> I tried recompile the regulatory domain database, those functions did
> >>> not retrieve the new values.
> >>> Whatever values I set for domain 00, the effect was null - BCM4313 kept
> >>> functioning independently.
> >> That is exactly what should happen. The brcmsmac driver applies a
> >> so-called strict custom regulatory domain and does not follow any
> >> regulatory domain provisioning.
> >
> > As I understand your words, the BCM4313 has a proprietary regdomain, a
> > so called "strict custom regulatory domain" buried in the firmware, and
> > finish.
> > That proprietary regdomain is applied when attaching brcmsmac Linux
> > driver.
> > But in other drivers, e.g. the wl driver, or ms-windows drivers all
> > versions, the BCM4313 doesn't apply that "strict custom regulatory
> > domain".
> > In all other drivers, the BCM4313 applies different regdomains and
> > relative power levels according to the system/OS.
> > So now, after your explanation, logic tells me, the BCM4313 regdomain is
> > locked only in the brcmsmac driver for Linux.
> > Instead it operates open and fully functional in the other drivers.
> > So now 3 more questions, if I'm allowed:
> > 1) What is assuring that proprietary "strict custom regulatory domain"
> > is not obsolete/deprecated and compliant to 802.11 regulations?
>
> This is a very hypothetical question. If regulation would indeed change
> in such way we would have to release new firmware.
>
> > 2) Regulatory domains can by 802.11 regulation change dynamically within
> > time/country, why BCM4313 users are obliged to lock only on 1
> > proprietary regdomain?
>
> This is not mandatory. Using 1 restricted world regulatory domain is
> fine as well as Pat Erley explained in his response.
>
> > 3) Why BCM4313 is locked only for brcmsmac?
>
> I explained that in an earlier email. It was a requirement for getting
> the driver open-sourced to avoid releasing proprietary code. For wl
> driver that part is in the binary blob that runs on the host so it does
> not need the restriction. Guess no further explanation is needed for the
> windows driver.
>
> >>> 2) MCS - 11n modulated frames are not detected in BCM4313 monitor mode -
> >>> I informed you about this issue more than 1 year ago, and again 2 weeks
> >>> ago.
> >>> The issue still reproduces, and no sign of any fix.
> >>> When/in what backports version, this issue is supposed to be fixed
> >>> finally?
> >> What is the deal about backports here. If there will be a fix it will be
> >> done upstream and eventually end up in a backports package. First need
> >> to root cause this issue.
> >
> > So now 2 more questions, if I'm allowed:
>
> You're pushing the limit ;-)
>
> > 4) Has been done any step so far, to root the cause of this issue?
>
> I did hunt down a 4313 to do so and put it in my test laptop.
>
> > 5) Since I have spent money&time on that device, I would like at least
> > to monitor the work in progress done to root the cause of this issue -
> > how can I?
>
> You could create a bugzilla item on kernel.org.
>
> Regards,
> Arend
>
> > Thanks& Greetings
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 4, 2015, at 10:01 AM, Arend van Spriel wrote:
> >> On 03/04/15 16:39, Nikita N. wrote:
> >>> Dear Arend,
> >>> as followup to my last inquiry, since it's passed more than 2 weeks, I'm
> >>> afraid I didn't receive any answer.
> >>
> >> Ok, you diverted my attention by presenting an absurd sense of reality.
> >> But let me put emotions aside and answer your questions below.
> >>
> >>> As from subject, I finally discovered that brcmsmac is not compliant to
> >>> 802.11 regulations for BCM4313.
> >>> So, as purchasing customer, and member of Linux users community, I try
> >>> to propose my questions to you again now, 3 in total:
> >>>
> >>> 1) Regulatory domain - you wrote "brcmsmac does assure tx power is
> >>> within regulatory limits by enforcing a world regulatory domain"
> >>> That affirmation is *FALSE*.
> >>> I spent the whole weekend putting brcmsmac under heavy trace, all
> >>> functions, above all the phy ones.
> >>> Some code "supposes" to enforce a regulatory domain, but the effect is
> >>> total null.
> >>> I tried recompile the regulatory domain database, those functions did
> >>> not retrieve the new values.
> >>> Whatever values I set for domain 00, the effect was null - BCM4313 kept
> >>> functioning independently.
> >>
> >> That is exactly what should happen. The brcmsmac driver applies a
> >> so-called strict custom regulatory domain and does not follow any
> >> regulatory domain provisioning.
> >>
> >> [87636.143361] cfg80211: Ignoring regulatory request set by core since
> >> the driver uses its own custom regulatory domain
> >>
> >>> The functions, phy and not, which are "supposed" to set the eeprom
> >>> registries for regdomain enforce, have effect null - the BCM4313 kept
> >>> functioning independently.
> >>> I tried setting random numbers in those functions and registries, the
> >>> effect was null - the BCM4313 kept functioning independently.
> >>> At the edge of my frustration, I started commenting away from the code
> >>> those whole phy functions, the effect was null again - the BCM4313 kept
> >>> functioning independently.
> >>> I don't know for what Broadcom hw device were written and *tested* those
> >>> functions - but sure is, they do *NOT* work for BCM4313.
> >>> Could you please explain how/where the BCM4313 is supposed to "enforcing
> >>> a world regulatory domain" ?
> >>
> >> It is done in firmware.
> >>
> >>> 2) MCS - 11n modulated frames are not detected in BCM4313 monitor mode -
> >>> I informed you about this issue more than 1 year ago, and again 2 weeks
> >>> ago.
> >>> The issue still reproduces, and no sign of any fix.
> >>> When/in what backports version, this issue is supposed to be fixed
> >>> finally?
> >>
> >> What is the deal about backports here. If there will be a fix it will be
> >> done upstream and eventually end up in a backports package. First need
> >> to root cause this issue.
> >>
> >>> 3) I explicitly purchased this BCM4313 already 1 year ago, with the
> >>> following specs: 0x4313 rev 0x01 package 0x08, 3 cores ChipCommon,
> >>> IEEE802.11 and PCIe.
> >>> I have been searching for any technical datasheet specification document
> >>> about BCM4313 on Broadcom website and others.
> >>> Did not find any.
> >>> Could you please send me a detailed technical datasheet specification
> >>> document about BCM4313, for programming/dev purposes?
> >>
> >> That is all proprietary information.
> >>
> >> Regards.
> >> Arend
> >>
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015, at 01:03 AM, Nikita N. wrote:
> >>>> Hi Arend,
> >>>>
> >>>>> brcmsmac does assure tx power is within regulatory limits by enforcing a
> >>>>> world regulatory domain. So what is not supported is modifying tx power
> >>>>> settings through user-space.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, I believe that could be right, *a* world regulatory domain looks
> >>>> indeed enforced, the USA one only, which is pre-set default inside
> >>>> EEPROM registries device, isn't it?
> >>>>
> >>>>> I know, but that driver is not fully open-source as it links in a binary
> >>>>> blob.
> >>>>
> >>>> AFAIK, also brcmsmac needs at least 2 firmware files to operate, without
> >>>> those nothing works.
> >>>> Isn't it the same concept?
> >>>>
> >>>>> I totally lost track of this one. I am using brcmsmac in monitor mode
> >>>>> using bcm43224 which captures 11n frames just fine. I will give it a try
> >>>>> with a bcm4313. The assoc response in your capture shows undefined MCS
> >>>>> set so maybe there really are no 11n MCS rates used (?).
> >>>>
> >>>> If that was a suggestion about to purchase a bcm43224 or any other
> >>>> Broadcom Corp. product, isn't really convincing, seen the overall
> >>>> support quality Customers are experiencing in here...
> >>>> About my capture file, in the case it was really incomplete someone
> >>>> could have informed me at least a year ago.
> >>>> But anyway no respectable QA Testing team needs a purchasing Customer to
> >>>> help in verifying such enormous issue, isn't it?
> >>>>
> >>>>> Our team consist of two man working full-time on the upstream linux
> >>>>> drivers. So our "customer care" is something that we try to deal with on
> >>>>> the side and admittedly things slip between the cracks.
> >>>>
> >>>> Really, *TWO* men? Are you kidding? Is that how much Broadcom Corp.
> >>>> values the Linux community?
> >>>> Needles to remind, even if Linux users don't pay for the OS license as
> >>>> Windows do, they do pay allright for any Broadcom hardware they
> >>>> purchase!
> >>>> Internet startups which sell a button on internet, they have Dev and QA
> >>>> team 5 times bigger than that!
> >>>> I sense a very gross capacity and resource planning competence issue in
> >>>> here.
> >>>> I kindly ask you, please forward that mail to your higher Managers, on
> >>>> my personal behalf, Thanks.
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> http://www.fastmail.com - Same, same, but different...
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
--
http://www.fastmail.com - The way an email service should be