Spanish law was based on CEPT/EU rules:
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/wireless-regdb/2012-June/000058.html
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/wireless-regdb/2012-June/000059.html
Orden ITC/332/2010, de 12 de febrero, por la que se aprueba el cuadro
nacional de atribución de frecuencias (CNAF):
https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-2010-2719
https://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2010/02/19/pdfs/BOE-A-2010-2719.pdf
search for:
UN - 85 RLANs y datos en 2400 a 2483,5 MHz (pag. 213)
UN – 128 RLANs en 5 GHz (pag. 232)
more info at "Cuadro nacional de atribución de frecuencias (CNAF)":
http://www.minetur.gob.es/telecomunicaciones/espectro/paginas/cnaf.aspx
Signed-off-by: Xose Vazquez Perez <[email protected]>
---
db.txt | 8 ++++----
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/db.txt b/db.txt
index 4c54543..11409d6 100644
--- a/db.txt
+++ b/db.txt
@@ -239,10 +239,10 @@ country EG:
(5250 - 5330 @ 20), (N/A, 20), DFS
country ES: DFS-ETSI
- (2402 - 2482 @ 40), (N/A, 20)
- (5170 - 5250 @ 40), (N/A, 20)
- (5250 - 5330 @ 40), (N/A, 20), DFS
- (5490 - 5710 @ 40), (N/A, 27), DFS
+ (2400 - 2483.5 @ 40), (N/A, 100 mW)
+ (5150 - 5250 @ 40), (N/A, 100 mW), NO-OUTDOOR
+ (5250 - 5350 @ 40), (N/A, 100 mW), NO-OUTDOOR, DFS
+ (5470 - 5725 @ 40), (N/A, 500 mW), DFS
country FI: DFS-ETSI
(2402 - 2482 @ 40), (N/A, 20)
--
1.7.10.4
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Xose Vazquez Perez
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Spanish law was based on CEPT/EU rules:
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/wireless-regdb/2012-June/000058.html
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/wireless-regdb/2012-June/000059.html
>
>
> Orden ITC/332/2010, de 12 de febrero, por la que se aprueba el cuadro
> nacional de atribución de frecuencias (CNAF):
> https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-2010-2719
> https://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2010/02/19/pdfs/BOE-A-2010-2719.pdf
>
> search for:
> UN - 85 RLANs y datos en 2400 a 2483,5 MHz (pag. 213)
> UN – 128 RLANs en 5 GHz (pag. 232)
>
> more info at "Cuadro nacional de atribución de frecuencias (CNAF)":
> http://www.minetur.gob.es/telecomunicaciones/espectro/paginas/cnaf.aspx
>
> Signed-off-by: Xose Vazquez Perez <[email protected]>
>
> ---
> db.txt | 8 ++++----
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/db.txt b/db.txt
> index 4c54543..11409d6 100644
> --- a/db.txt
> +++ b/db.txt
> @@ -239,10 +239,10 @@ country EG:
> (5250 - 5330 @ 20), (N/A, 20), DFS
>
> country ES: DFS-ETSI
> - (2402 - 2482 @ 40), (N/A, 20)
> - (5170 - 5250 @ 40), (N/A, 20)
> - (5250 - 5330 @ 40), (N/A, 20), DFS
> - (5490 - 5710 @ 40), (N/A, 27), DFS
> + (2400 - 2483.5 @ 40), (N/A, 100 mW)
> + (5150 - 5250 @ 40), (N/A, 100 mW), NO-OUTDOOR
> + (5250 - 5350 @ 40), (N/A, 100 mW), NO-OUTDOOR, DFS
> + (5470 - 5725 @ 40), (N/A, 500 mW), DFS
You are changing from dBm to mW directly... please do the unit change
in one patch and *then* the actual change. This would make it easier
to review....
Luis
On 07/04/2012 02:49 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Xose Vazquez Perez
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> country ES: DFS-ETSI
>> - (2402 - 2482 @ 40), (N/A, 20)
>> - (5170 - 5250 @ 40), (N/A, 20)
>> - (5250 - 5330 @ 40), (N/A, 20), DFS
>> - (5490 - 5710 @ 40), (N/A, 27), DFS
>> + (2400 - 2483.5 @ 40), (N/A, 100 mW)
>> + (5150 - 5250 @ 40), (N/A, 100 mW), NO-OUTDOOR
>> + (5250 - 5350 @ 40), (N/A, 100 mW), NO-OUTDOOR, DFS
>> + (5470 - 5725 @ 40), (N/A, 500 mW), DFS
> You are changing from dBm to mW directly... please do the unit change
> in one patch and *then* the actual change. This would make it easier
> to review....
I did copy & paste from DE to ES. These are basic CEPT rules.
10 log(100) = 20
10 log(500) ~ 27
Anyway tomorrow, I will send a new patch.
"Arend van Spriel" <[email protected]> writes:
> Just a general remark not specific to this patch. The commit message
> often contains a source reference. I think it would be useful to have
> this reference in the database a well so people validating it do not
> need to do the digging using 'git blame'. Does that make sense?
Yes :)
IMHO makes a lot easier to validate the entries.
--
Kalle Valo
On 07/04/2012 03:05 AM, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
> On 07/04/2012 02:49 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Xose Vazquez Perez
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> country ES: DFS-ETSI
>>> - (2402 - 2482 @ 40), (N/A, 20)
>>> - (5170 - 5250 @ 40), (N/A, 20)
>>> - (5250 - 5330 @ 40), (N/A, 20), DFS
>>> - (5490 - 5710 @ 40), (N/A, 27), DFS
>>> + (2400 - 2483.5 @ 40), (N/A, 100 mW)
>>> + (5150 - 5250 @ 40), (N/A, 100 mW), NO-OUTDOOR
>>> + (5250 - 5350 @ 40), (N/A, 100 mW), NO-OUTDOOR, DFS
>>> + (5470 - 5725 @ 40), (N/A, 500 mW), DFS
>
>> You are changing from dBm to mW directly... please do the unit change
>> in one patch and *then* the actual change. This would make it easier
>> to review....
>
> I did copy & paste from DE to ES. These are basic CEPT rules.
>
> 10 log(100) = 20
> 10 log(500) ~ 27
>
> Anyway tomorrow, I will send a new patch.
Just a general remark not specific to this patch. The commit message
often contains a source reference. I think it would be useful to have
this reference in the database a well so people validating it do not
need to do the digging using 'git blame'. Does that make sense?
Gr. AvS
On 07/09/2012 03:14 PM, Kalle Valo wrote:
> "Arend van Spriel" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Just a general remark not specific to this patch. The commit message
>> often contains a source reference. I think it would be useful to have
>> this reference in the database as well so people validating it do not
>> need to do the digging using 'git blame'. Does that make sense?
>
> Yes :)
>
> IMHO makes a lot easier to validate the entries.
>
Luis, John,
What are your thoughts on my remark above?
Gr. AvS
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 04:01:13PM +0200, Arend van Spriel wrote:
> On 07/09/2012 03:14 PM, Kalle Valo wrote:
> > "Arend van Spriel" <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> Just a general remark not specific to this patch. The commit message
> >> often contains a source reference. I think it would be useful to have
> >> this reference in the database as well so people validating it do not
> >> need to do the digging using 'git blame'. Does that make sense?
> >
> > Yes :)
> >
> > IMHO makes a lot easier to validate the entries.
> >
>
> Luis, John,
>
> What are your thoughts on my remark above?
It seems reasonable to me. OTOH, it could lead to a lot of clutter
in the database file...? I guess it is a matter of judgment.
John
--
John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you
[email protected] might be all we have. Be ready.