Return-path: Received: from mail-io0-f178.google.com ([209.85.223.178]:34102 "EHLO mail-io0-f178.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750995AbbJMSwA (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Oct 2015 14:52:00 -0400 Received: by iow1 with SMTP id 1so31537326iow.1 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 11:52:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 13:37:33 -0500 From: Seth Forshee To: Chen-Yu Tsai Cc: wireless-regdb@lists.infradead.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] wireless-regdb: Update TW and US rules to latest regulations Message-ID: <20151013183733.GB50632@ubuntu-hedt> (sfid-20151013_205205_942529_8D532F86) References: <1444061698-16384-1-git-send-email-wens@csie.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1444061698-16384-1-git-send-email-wens@csie.org> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 12:14:53AM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: > Hi Seth, > > This is v4 of my TW/US 5GHz updates series. Hopefully this one will go > in without further work. > > Changes since v3: > > - Moved power limit increase of 5250 ~ 5350 MHz band from patch 4 to > patch 5. > > Changes since v2: > > - Moved the US U-NII-1 (5150 ~ 5250 MHz) patch in front of the TW patch > > - Drop U-NII-1 power limit from 24 dBm to 23 dBm, to be on the safe > side of 250mW > > > Patch 1 updates the 5470 ~ 5725 MHz rules for Taiwan, specifically > the opening up of 5600 ~ 5650 MHz spectrum previously allocated to > weather radars. The transmission power limit is also corrected to > match the regulations. > > Patch 2 changes the boundary frequencies for each rule for Taiwan to > match the frequency allocation table. The "regulation" database shouldn't > care about artificial channel boundaries. > > Patch 3 updates the transmission power limits for 5150 ~ 5250 MHz for > the US. > > Patch 4 adds the previously unusable 5150 ~ 5250 MHz band for Taiwan. > > Patch 5 updates the transmission power limits for Taiwan, per the NCC's > official reply. This patch may be slightly controversial, as there is > no official English document. Either someone will have to independently > verify this, or translate the Chinese document. Applied all 5, thanks.