Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 14:33:19 -0700 From: Adrian Chadd <adrian.chadd@gmail.com> To: Aaron <notjanedeere@gmail.com> Cc: "freebsd-wireless@freebsd.org" <freebsd-wireless@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: regdomain.xml Message-ID: <CAJ-Vmonigq35XpxAmdJ7JFH32QRu2FpvooD20BiRoG4ZmmP_cA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <c3f15731-2dc0-7d87-1c41-d873bd99369b@gmail.com> References: <CAJ-VmomofP8%2B5r1kWTvHXvgd-imERKLOMf_BiQaTY8M8bQCeCw@mail.gmail.com> <f429089c012869afa7c875fa24e941f3@udns.ultimatedns.net> <CAJ-VmomVTYQg0BX3jgPBBGhUyiSd0upT1JcE4XLbWMgwiPD7jg@mail.gmail.com> <CACNAnaEZwjpZMJ3JhoOn=Qb3H_9FL08T4VHOeGLS=FzYRSDqLQ@mail.gmail.com> <c3f15731-2dc0-7d87-1c41-d873bd99369b@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 at 14:31, Aaron <notjanedeere@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>> What do others think? What should we do? > >>> I vote for recreating it as a CSV file. Would then be easier to work > with > >>> and easy to convert to other formats -- json/xml/... > >> Lol, if anything we'd likely use a format that we already use inside the > >> tree, so json or xml. I don't MIND xml, but I mind how it's laid out > right > >> now . It makes extending things a pain in the rear. > > Don't overlook ucl here, which can even do fancy stuff like file > > inclusion (which may or may not do object merging, based on how your > > ucl files are written) and is now used in a couple places of the tree. > > You could perhaps section off /usr/share/regdomain and do all kinds of > > fun stuff that reduces the labor involved.v > > UCL looks interesting, what level of adoption does it have? If it's > common enough ... > > A single CSV file would be a catastrophe, there are several different > sections to the regdomain.xml file, it would have to be several. JSON > or XML work, but I certainly won't be editing them manually. Likely all > programmatic through Python, perhaps later we write a shell script to > make future changes easier? > > Agree the current format is poor, will propose changes once I've dug > further into how the file is being used and what it's failing to do > currently. Still gathering information. > > Ok. Please do dig into it. Do try to treat the regdomain code as a black box - input is "what regulatory domain do we want" and the output is "a list of channels and properties of those channels that we currently program into net80211." Hopefully we don't have to change the net80211 channel API! -adrian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-Vmonigq35XpxAmdJ7JFH32QRu2FpvooD20BiRoG4ZmmP_cA>