Return-path: Received: from mms2.broadcom.com ([216.31.210.18]:3029 "EHLO mms2.broadcom.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751950Ab2CHVBS (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Mar 2012 16:01:18 -0500 Message-ID: <4F591E14.4010000@broadcom.com> (sfid-20120308_220123_075130_3F20DE2E) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 22:01:08 +0100 From: "Arend van Spriel" MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Seth Forshee" cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" , "Quan, David" , "Green, Michael" , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , "Johannes Berg" Subject: Re: Problems with regulatory domain support and BCM43224 References: <20120307194001.GA2506@ubuntu-macmini> <20120308174101.GB28133@ubuntu-macmini> <4B96CD77D9161244899852B5F20DB5B70125BB72@nasanexd02d.na.qualcomm.com> <4B96CD77D9161244899852B5F20DB5B70125BC94@nasanexd02d.na.qualcomm.com> <20120308200734.GC28133@ubuntu-macmini> In-Reply-To: <20120308200734.GC28133@ubuntu-macmini> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 03/08/2012 09:07 PM, Seth Forshee wrote: > On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 11:51:03AM -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Quan, David wrote: >>> I think there is to it more than SW. >>> Where ever you get this card, is the card tested and regulatory approved for those countries, DFS or not? >> >> Seth, what driver are you using? I know you are using a BCM43224 card. > > brcmsmac > >>> It is possible that this card is only regulatory tested for non DFS channels, but now you enable them for passive. >> >> That's a good point. >> >>> This means that yes, you are save and not violate DFS rules because you are in passive mode. However, you are in complete violation if the STA finds an AP on that DFS channel and then connects and transmits as this STA is not allow to transmit on that channel since it is not approved. >> >> If the driver being used is a supported vendor driver then I'll punt >> this to the vendor (Broadcom). If this is the reversed engineered >> driver (b43) that Broadcom to this day seems to blindly ignore even >> for regulatory, then I'm happy to recommend based on your input to >> leave the regulatory domain as-is given that we cannot guarantee what >> the vendor meant as they have not done any work on releasing either >> documentation or code to help with their regulatory situation. > > It would be nice if Broadcom could weigh in. Cc-ing Arend. Hi, Seth Noticed your email yesterday, but did not get to chime into the conversation. brcmsmac does indeed provide a regulatory hint, which is either from SPROM or hard-coded to "US". Since "X0" is not a known regulatory domain for crda it does not make sense to pass it as a regulatory hint. However, the "full" story is told on linuxwireless.org (see [1]). Gr. AvS [1] http://linuxwireless.org/en/users/Drivers/brcm80211