From owner-freebsd-wireless@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jul 18 01:00:04 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-wireless@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEFC67B9; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 01:00:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from prvs=904cb4ac1=Brett.Wright@cooperindustries.com) Received: from cooperlighting-sw.cooperlighting.com (cooperlighting-sw.cooperlighting.com [216.130.131.68]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 793608C0; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 01:00:03 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: cooperlighting-sw.cooperlighting.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,689,1367985600"; d="scan'208";a="109844996" Received: from cipt0175.nam.ci.root ([10.132.108.175]) by cooperlighting-sw.cooperlighting.com with ESMTP; 17 Jul 2013 20:58:56 -0400 Received: from APEVS1.AP.CI.ROOT ([10.180.2.22]) by cipt0175.NAM.CI.ROOT with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 17 Jul 2013 20:58:56 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: So, which IEEE<->Frequency mappings should we be all using? Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 08:58:42 +0800 Message-ID: <475A4E02EFF4724A9E58F55A56AC1316089BB77C@APEVS1.ap.ci.root> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: So, which IEEE<->Frequency mappings should we be all using? Thread-Index: Ac6DFQeT16cT2tecRkmiNvvXIr78wgANSogA References: From: "Wright, Brett" To: "Adrian Chadd" , , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Jul 2013 00:58:56.0071 (UTC) FILETIME=[FAA01D70:01CE8351] X-BeenThere: freebsd-wireless@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussions of 802.11 stack, tools device driver development." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 01:00:04 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-freebsd-wireless@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd- > wireless@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Chadd > Sent: Thursday, 18 July 2013 3:42 AM > To: freebsd-wireless@freebsd.org; linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org > Subject: So, which IEEE<->Frequency mappings should we be all using? >=20 > Hi all, >=20 > I've been increasingly asked to bring up FreeBSD on "other" bands. >=20 > * 420MHz > * 700MHz > * 900MHz (which we already have, due to history); > * 3.6GHz > * 4.9GHz >=20 > I'd also like to support half and quarter width channels on these frequencies. > If I use the 2GHz channel mapping method, I end up with a very restricted > channel set and it definitely has no "gaps" for 5/10MHz increments. >=20 > Now, what I'd like to do is figure out some sane, shared method of > translating channel frequencies to IEEE numbers and back. That way the BSDs > and Linux (and maybe commercial stacks; I dunno what they do) can have > some sane chance of interoperating. >=20 > So: Is there some standardised or semi-standardised channel mapping > method? Or should we invent one? >=20 >=20 > -adrian Hi Adrian, I wanted to make similar changes to madwifi some years ago, and as there was no standard I invented one. This likely won't align with your requirements, but share some details below in case it may help. The approach I took was that the ieee channel numbers should overlap for the different frequency bands, as there are a huge number of different channels once you include all bands + 5, 10, 20, (and maybe 40) channel widths (not such a big deal since no manufacturers seem to offer a radio that supports more than one of the lower frequency bands on one board). This way the 20MHz channel numbers were unchanged for all bands (as they report as 2.4GHz band anyway), and the 5 and 10 MHz widths I mapped above channel 14 using mapgsm() and ath_hal_mhz2ieee(), plus other additions like unmapgsm, etc. To cut a long story short I ended up with channels 1-14 for 20MHz, 21-34 for 5MHz, and 41-54 for 10MHz.