[lkml]   [2012]   [Apr]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Problems with regulatory domain support and BCM43224
    On 04/11/2012 03:39 PM, Seth Forshee wrote:
    > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 12:16:40PM +0200, Arend van Spriel wrote:
    >> On 04/10/2012 06:28 PM, Seth Forshee wrote:
    >>>> The patch builds, and kind of works. Scanning seems to be fine; I can
    >>>>> see all the APs I expect in my area, including the one on a DFS channel
    >>>>> that I couldn't see previously. I can associate with my 2.4 GHz APs, but
    >>>>> not the 5 GHz AP. I see timme outs waiting for probe responses, and I'm
    >>>>> hitting the WARN_ON_ONCE in brcms_c_wait_for_tx_completion(). I haven't
    >>>>> really debugged this yet -- I thought I'd send out the patch to collect
    >>>>> comments while I debug. Suggestions of what's causing this are also
    >>>>> welcome:)
    >>> This was due to always passing true for the value of mute_tx to
    >>> brcms_b_set_chanspec() on passive channels. For now I'm just always
    >>> passing false, which looks like it ought to be okay as we shouldn't have
    >>> any tx on passive channels unless beacons are seen on the channel.
    >> Yes. I discovered this as well. Actually, I sent out a patch for
    >> some people to test it. I submitted a slightly different patch to
    >> John in which tx in unmuted upon receiving a beacon.
    > I assume you're talking about this patch?
    > My original changes would mute tx whenever IEEE80211_CHAN_PASSIVE_SCAN
    > is set for the current channel. I'll try that again with your patch.

    That is the one.

    >>>>> One of the major unresolved issues in the patch is what to do with the
    >>>>> data in struct locale_mimo_info. The regulatory rules only hold one
    >>>>> power level. I'm unsure why the brcmsmac implementation differs in this
    >>>>> regard. Suggestions?
    >>> This is still one of the largest unsolved issues. I'm probably going to
    >>> need some advice on how to fill out the txpwr information when
    >>> regualtory rules external to the driver can be applied.
    >> The power constraints for HT (covered by struct locale_mimo_info)
    >> are handled differently from non-HT. I have to confirm internally
    >> whether this is specific for our devices or actually needed to be
    >> compliant.
    > Great, thanks.

    No answer on this one yet, but keep you posted.

    Gr. AvS

     \ /
      Last update: 2012-04-11 18:55    [W:0.022 / U:10.876 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site