Return-path: Received: from mail-da0-f46.google.com ([209.85.210.46]:37232 "EHLO mail-da0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751018Ab2JaFQV (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Oct 2012 01:16:21 -0400 Received: by mail-da0-f46.google.com with SMTP id n41so459263dak.19 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 22:16:20 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <508EB783.9080000@candelatech.com> <5090560D.1090708@candelatech.com> Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 22:16:20 -0700 Message-ID: (sfid-20121031_061630_138984_B6E4166F) Subject: Re: Any thoughts on how to best shield u.fl connectors on NICs? From: Adrian Chadd To: Julian Calaby Cc: Ben Greear , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 30 October 2012 16:45, Julian Calaby wrote: > That's a good point, all the NICs I've looked at closely (e.g. the > rt2500usb cards on my desk at the moment) have an antenna or u.fl > connector with some passive components around it and usually the > antenna trace runs exposed on the board for a couple of millimetres > before it disappears under the shielding around the RF chip. I'll > check my collection at home tonight, but I'm pretty sure that all the > PCI cards have a couple of cm of exposed antenna trace between the SMA > connector and the RF shield. I've even seen ${COMMERCIAL} kit do this internally. Ben, what are you worried about in particular? Adrian