Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 03:15:11 +0200 From: =?iso-8859-2?Q?Daniel_Dvo=F8=E1k?= <dandee@hellteam.net> To: "'Sam Leffler'" <sam@errno.com> Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, 'Henrik Brix Andersen' <henrik@brixandersen.dk> Subject: RE: cvs commit: src/sys/dev/ath if_ath.c if_athvar.h 1.153 Message-ID: <001201c6dc52$3a9414d0$6508280a@tocnet28.jspoj.czf> In-Reply-To: <45108C37.1090109@errno.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Okay about vendors, a) and b) compex and its WPE54AG supports "smartselect" funcion aka DFS and country select as we talked about it recently. http://www.i4shop.net/cz/iObchod/Catalog.asp?ca=1620&it=9259 http://www.inwifi.cz/stahnete-si/soubor.php?f=4f1d47475a466cb321f82dea200f92 d1 I tested these 2 boxes, they worked in smartselection mode, yes true, I am not very sure about that because I did not scan it by kismet, so perhaps they worked seeming. About complaining, I did not want to complain you at all !!! Read my e-mail clearly I said I disagree with you only one thing, it is how you wrote "slipped requirement". And directly about Atheros, they do not answer repeatedly on my question about win32 drivers oid´s so now I do not count that even they answer if I complain them now. You know. :) Daniel > -----Original Message----- > From: Sam Leffler [mailto:sam@errno.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 2:33 AM > To: dandee@volny.cz > Cc: 'Henrik Brix Andersen'; cvs-src@FreeBSD.org; > src-committers@FreeBSD.org; cvs-all@FreeBSD.org > Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/dev/ath if_ath.c if_athvar.h 1.153 > > Daniel Dvor(ák wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I disagree with that the requirement had been slipped. > Where is it written ? > > > > In our country this requirement still exists and the same > is with ETSI > > the whole Europe countries. It was required one year ago > and the same is now. > > > > Our regulator have not said something similar to "Okay, > this DFS was > > mistake and after 1 year, now, we do not require it. We wanted that > > simple because of funny." > > > > I am surprised, how hardware vendors with whole source of hal still > > can respect licence to transmit in 5G band legally with > working DFS, > > but open source systems did not offer this requirement after many > > months and even DFS is abolished. > > > > I am sorry if I was rude, but I get upset that there was > not legally > > atheros drivers for OSS and is not and it seems it will not. > > > > I still beliefed DFS will be in ath drivers, but not. Do > you remember > > my questions and interest about DFS and TPC and your answers ? > > > > I understand I am not a developer so I am not entitled to > be irritated > > with this, but I have a law to tell you what I think about > whole it. > > (IMHO) > > > > It is a big pity! > > > > Sam, you know that I admire and respect your hard work for > our beloved > > fbsd, I am sorry if my unexpected words make you angry with > me, but I > > deeply, very deeply disagree with you about slipped requirement. > > > > There still exists. > > > > Thanks for your attention. > > TPC has been supported for a long time. DFS can be > implemented w/o the hal blindly interfering. Talk to the > madwifi folks about why having the hal try to do radar > processing is bad; they suffered through the one hal release > Atheros made (note Atheros, not me) where there was an > attempt at detecting radar for the purpose of implementing DFS. > > If you read my original commit msg it clearly states I am > removing stub code. If you want to complain that Atheros > isn't giving away a radar/DFS implementation then talk to > them. But be sure to show up with a list of vendors that: a) > currently do so, or b) provide sufficient information about > their hardware that you can implement it yourself. I figure > if you can supply either they will immediately provide > code--if it's even possible. > > Sam >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?001201c6dc52$3a9414d0$6508280a>