Hi,
I'm using PLANEX GW-US54GXS (2019:5303) and it works with
the attached patch. Could you consider to merge the attached
patch?
Problem: GW-US54GXS uses zd1211rw but zd1211rw doesn't have
a regulatory domain reported by GW-US54GXS (0x49).
Solutions:
(1) add a new regulatory domain (0x49). Here is a patch to
use the approach:
----
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/zd1211rw/zd_mac.c b/drivers/net/wireless/zd1211rw/zd_mac.c
index 163a8a0..faf45f1 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/zd1211rw/zd_mac.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/zd1211rw/zd_mac.c
@@ -43,6 +43,7 @@ static struct zd_reg_alpha2_map reg_alpha2_map[] = {
{ ZD_REGDOMAIN_ETSI, "DE" }, /* Generic ETSI, use most restrictive */
{ ZD_REGDOMAIN_JAPAN, "JP" },
{ ZD_REGDOMAIN_JAPAN_ADD, "JP" },
+ { ZD_REGDOMAIN_JAPAN_GW_US54GXS, "JP" },
{ ZD_REGDOMAIN_SPAIN, "ES" },
{ ZD_REGDOMAIN_FRANCE, "FR" },
};
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/zd1211rw/zd_mac.h b/drivers/net/wireless/zd1211rw/zd_mac.h
index 630c298..7ab19d5 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/zd1211rw/zd_mac.h
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/zd1211rw/zd_mac.h
@@ -214,6 +214,7 @@ struct zd_mac {
#define ZD_REGDOMAIN_FRANCE 0x32
#define ZD_REGDOMAIN_JAPAN_ADD 0x40
#define ZD_REGDOMAIN_JAPAN 0x41
+#define ZD_REGDOMAIN_JAPAN_GW_US54GXS 0x49
enum {
MIN_CHANNEL24 = 1,
----
(2) just ignore unknown regulatory domain. (the attached
patch approach)
It seems that (2) is a better solution because we can change
regulatory domain by CRDA (*).
(*) http://wireless.kernel.org/en/developers/Regulatory/CRDA
Thanks,
--
kou
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 09:55:23PM +0900, Kouhei Sutou wrote:
> I used 'ZD_REGDOMAIN_JAPAN_GW_US54GXS' as a macro name for
> 0x49 because 0x49 is used by GW-US54GXS. Is it OK? Or should
> I use other name for it?
Hopefully someone can suggest a better name. Anyone know what inspired
"ZD_REGDOMAIN_JAPAN_ADD"?
John
--
John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you
[email protected] might be all we have. Be ready.
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 7:25 AM, Kouhei Sutou <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In <[email protected]>
> "Re: [PATCH] zd1211rw: ignore unknown regulatory domain." on Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:23:20 -0700,
> "Luis R. Rodriguez" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> I'm using PLANEX GW-US54GXS (2019:5303) and it works with
>>> the attached patch. Could you consider to merge the attached
>>> patch?
>>>
>>> Problem: GW-US54GXS uses zd1211rw but zd1211rw doesn't have
>>> a regulatory domain reported by GW-US54GXS (0x49).
>>>
>>> Solutions:
>>>
>>> (1) add a new regulatory domain (0x49). Here is a patch to
>>> use the approach:
>>
>> Stephen, David, does 0x49 map to JP for zd1211 ? Are there other ones?
>> Here is our list so far:
> ...
>> Kouhei, if no regulatory domain is found, instead we should world
>> roam, we cannot allow letting the user change regulatory domains at
>> their whim. We can, however let them choose one to help compliance,
>> but you can only help compliance once you know your actual regulatory
>> domain.
>
> Luis, thanks for your input.
> It seems that we can't use GW-US54GXS until 0x49 regulatory
> domain is registered to zd1211rw. Is it right?
>
> If it is right, what I can do for GW-US54GXS? Should I wait
> a response from Stephen and/or David?
We spoke and 0x49 - > JP is ok, can you send a patch for that?
Luis
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 8:29 AM, John W. Linville
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 12:02:23AM +0900, Kouhei Sutou wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> In <[email protected]>
>> "Re: [PATCH] zd1211rw: ignore unknown regulatory domain." on Wed, 16 Jun 2010 09:44:22 -0400,
>> "John W. Linville" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 09:55:23PM +0900, Kouhei Sutou wrote:
>> >
>> >> I used 'ZD_REGDOMAIN_JAPAN_GW_US54GXS' as a macro name for
>> >> 0x49 because 0x49 is used by GW-US54GXS. Is it OK? Or should
>> >> I use other name for it?
>> >
>> > Hopefully someone can suggest a better name. Anyone know what inspired
>> > "ZD_REGDOMAIN_JAPAN_ADD"?
>>
>> 'ZD_REGDOMAIN_JAPAN_3' was used in another patch:
>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/47220/
>>
>> But I don't know why '3' was used...
>
> '3' makes sense to me. The better question is why not change 'ADD' to '2'? :-)
2 is fine to replace ADD, I think "ADD" is additional :P
Luis
Hi,
In <[email protected]>
"Re: [PATCH] zd1211rw: ignore unknown regulatory domain." on Wed, 16 Jun 2010 09:44:22 -0400,
"John W. Linville" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 09:55:23PM +0900, Kouhei Sutou wrote:
>
>> I used 'ZD_REGDOMAIN_JAPAN_GW_US54GXS' as a macro name for
>> 0x49 because 0x49 is used by GW-US54GXS. Is it OK? Or should
>> I use other name for it?
>
> Hopefully someone can suggest a better name. Anyone know what inspired
> "ZD_REGDOMAIN_JAPAN_ADD"?
'ZD_REGDOMAIN_JAPAN_3' was used in another patch:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/47220/
But I don't know why '3' was used...
Thanks,
--
kou
Hi,
In <[email protected]>
"Re: [PATCH] zd1211rw: ignore unknown regulatory domain." on Tue, 15 Jun 2010 08:22:09 -0700,
"Luis R. Rodriguez" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 7:25 AM, Kouhei Sutou <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> In <[email protected]>
>> ?"Re: [PATCH] zd1211rw: ignore unknown regulatory domain." on Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:23:20 -0700,
>> ?"Luis R. Rodriguez" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>> I'm using PLANEX GW-US54GXS (2019:5303) and it works with
>>>> the attached patch. Could you consider to merge the attached
>>>> patch?
>>>>
>>>> Problem: GW-US54GXS uses zd1211rw but zd1211rw doesn't have
>>>> a regulatory domain reported by GW-US54GXS (0x49).
>>>>
>>>> Solutions:
>>>>
>>>> ?(1) add a new regulatory domain (0x49). Here is a patch to
>>>> ? ? ?use the approach:
>>>
>>> Stephen, David, does 0x49 map to JP for zd1211 ? Are there other ones?
>>> Here is our list so far:
>> ...
>>> Kouhei, if no regulatory domain is found, instead we should world
>>> roam, we cannot allow letting the user change regulatory domains at
>>> their whim. We can, however let them choose one to help compliance,
>>> but you can only help compliance once you know your actual regulatory
>>> domain.
>>
>> Luis, thanks for your input.
>> It seems that we can't use GW-US54GXS until 0x49 regulatory
>> domain is registered to zd1211rw. Is it right?
>>
>> If it is right, what I can do for GW-US54GXS? Should I wait
>> a response from Stephen and/or David?
>
> We spoke and 0x49 - > JP is ok, can you send a patch for that?
OK.
I'll attach a patch for that.
I used 'ZD_REGDOMAIN_JAPAN_GW_US54GXS' as a macro name for
0x49 because 0x49 is used by GW-US54GXS. Is it OK? Or should
I use other name for it?
Thanks,
--
kou
Hi,
In <[email protected]>
"Re: [PATCH] zd1211rw: ignore unknown regulatory domain." on Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:23:20 -0700,
"Luis R. Rodriguez" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I'm using PLANEX GW-US54GXS (2019:5303) and it works with
>> the attached patch. Could you consider to merge the attached
>> patch?
>>
>> Problem: GW-US54GXS uses zd1211rw but zd1211rw doesn't have
>> a regulatory domain reported by GW-US54GXS (0x49).
>>
>> Solutions:
>>
>> ?(1) add a new regulatory domain (0x49). Here is a patch to
>> ? ? ?use the approach:
>
> Stephen, David, does 0x49 map to JP for zd1211 ? Are there other ones?
> Here is our list so far:
...
> Kouhei, if no regulatory domain is found, instead we should world
> roam, we cannot allow letting the user change regulatory domains at
> their whim. We can, however let them choose one to help compliance,
> but you can only help compliance once you know your actual regulatory
> domain.
Luis, thanks for your input.
It seems that we can't use GW-US54GXS until 0x49 regulatory
domain is registered to zd1211rw. Is it right?
If it is right, what I can do for GW-US54GXS? Should I wait
a response from Stephen and/or David?
Thanks,
--
kou
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 12:02:23AM +0900, Kouhei Sutou wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In <[email protected]>
> "Re: [PATCH] zd1211rw: ignore unknown regulatory domain." on Wed, 16 Jun 2010 09:44:22 -0400,
> "John W. Linville" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 09:55:23PM +0900, Kouhei Sutou wrote:
> >
> >> I used 'ZD_REGDOMAIN_JAPAN_GW_US54GXS' as a macro name for
> >> 0x49 because 0x49 is used by GW-US54GXS. Is it OK? Or should
> >> I use other name for it?
> >
> > Hopefully someone can suggest a better name. Anyone know what inspired
> > "ZD_REGDOMAIN_JAPAN_ADD"?
>
> 'ZD_REGDOMAIN_JAPAN_3' was used in another patch:
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/47220/
>
> But I don't know why '3' was used...
'3' makes sense to me. The better question is why not change 'ADD' to '2'? :-)
John
--
John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you
[email protected] might be all we have. Be ready.
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 10:23 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez <[email protected]> wrote:
> Note: this e-mail is on a public mailing list!
>
> On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 10:52 PM, Kouhei Sutou <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm using PLANEX GW-US54GXS (2019:5303) and it works with
>> the attached patch. Could you consider to merge the attached
>> patch?
>>
>> Problem: GW-US54GXS uses zd1211rw but zd1211rw doesn't have
>> a regulatory domain reported by GW-US54GXS (0x49).
>>
>> Solutions:
>>
>> ?(1) add a new regulatory domain (0x49). Here is a patch to
>> ? ? ?use the approach:
>
> Stephen, David, does 0x49 map to JP for zd1211 ? Are there other ones?
> Here is our list so far:
>
> #define ZD_REGDOMAIN_FCC ? ? ? ?0x10
> #define ZD_REGDOMAIN_IC ? ? ? ? 0x20
> #define ZD_REGDOMAIN_ETSI ? ? ? 0x30
> #define ZD_REGDOMAIN_SPAIN ? ? ?0x31
> #define ZD_REGDOMAIN_FRANCE ? ? 0x32
> #define ZD_REGDOMAIN_JAPAN_ADD ?0x40
> #define ZD_REGDOMAIN_JAPAN ? ? ?0x41
>
> This is what they map to:
>
> static struct zd_reg_alpha2_map reg_alpha2_map[] = {
> ? ? ? ?{ ZD_REGDOMAIN_FCC, "US" },
> ? ? ? ?{ ZD_REGDOMAIN_IC, "CA" },
> ? ? ? ?{ ZD_REGDOMAIN_ETSI, "DE" }, /* Generic ETSI, use most restrictive */
Note: This one is causing me problems here in Hungary, as it keeps
resetting my regdomain to Germany. I believe we should implement
allowing the user to choose regdomain in this case, but allowing only
regdomains in ETSI.
> ? ? ? ?{ ZD_REGDOMAIN_JAPAN, "JP" },
> ? ? ? ?{ ZD_REGDOMAIN_JAPAN_ADD, "JP" },
> ? ? ? ?{ ZD_REGDOMAIN_SPAIN, "ES" },
> ? ? ? ?{ ZD_REGDOMAIN_FRANCE, "FR" },
> };
>
> Kouhei, if no regulatory domain is found, instead we should world
> roam, we cannot allow letting the user change regulatory domains at
> their whim. We can, however let them choose one to help compliance,
> but you can only help compliance once you know your actual regulatory
> domain.
>
> ?Luis
> --
> 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
>
--
Vista: [V]iruses, [I]ntruders, [S]pyware, [T]rojans and [A]dware. :-)
Note: this e-mail is on a public mailing list!
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 10:52 PM, Kouhei Sutou <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm using PLANEX GW-US54GXS (2019:5303) and it works with
> the attached patch. Could you consider to merge the attached
> patch?
>
> Problem: GW-US54GXS uses zd1211rw but zd1211rw doesn't have
> a regulatory domain reported by GW-US54GXS (0x49).
>
> Solutions:
>
> (1) add a new regulatory domain (0x49). Here is a patch to
> use the approach:
Stephen, David, does 0x49 map to JP for zd1211 ? Are there other ones?
Here is our list so far:
#define ZD_REGDOMAIN_FCC 0x10
#define ZD_REGDOMAIN_IC 0x20
#define ZD_REGDOMAIN_ETSI 0x30
#define ZD_REGDOMAIN_SPAIN 0x31
#define ZD_REGDOMAIN_FRANCE 0x32
#define ZD_REGDOMAIN_JAPAN_ADD 0x40
#define ZD_REGDOMAIN_JAPAN 0x41
This is what they map to:
static struct zd_reg_alpha2_map reg_alpha2_map[] = {
{ ZD_REGDOMAIN_FCC, "US" },
{ ZD_REGDOMAIN_IC, "CA" },
{ ZD_REGDOMAIN_ETSI, "DE" }, /* Generic ETSI, use most restrictive */
{ ZD_REGDOMAIN_JAPAN, "JP" },
{ ZD_REGDOMAIN_JAPAN_ADD, "JP" },
{ ZD_REGDOMAIN_SPAIN, "ES" },
{ ZD_REGDOMAIN_FRANCE, "FR" },
};
Kouhei, if no regulatory domain is found, instead we should world
roam, we cannot allow letting the user change regulatory domains at
their whim. We can, however let them choose one to help compliance,
but you can only help compliance once you know your actual regulatory
domain.
Luis