Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 04 Oct 2009 16:28:20 -0700
From:      Sam Leffler <sam@errno.com>
To:        Matt Dawson <matt@chronos.org.uk>
Cc:        freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: ral(4) on 8-RC1
Message-ID:  <4AC92F94.4020106@errno.com>
In-Reply-To: <200910032240.45357.matt@chronos.org.uk>
References:  <200910021726.33663.matt@chronos.org.uk> <4AC797E2.2050709@errno.com> <200910032240.45357.matt@chronos.org.uk>

index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail

Matt Dawson wrote:
> On Saturday 03 Oct 2009 19:28:50 you wrote:
>> ral probably does not populate it's initial channel list according to 
>> the device capabilities.  I'm guessing it falls back on the system code 
>> to do that and it fills in only channels 1-11.  This means future 
>> changes to regulatory cannot setup the channels you want--it's not 
>> allowed to add channels that are not listed in the "device
>>  capabilities".
> 
> That makes sense. Given that my 2561 card has "ETSI" stamped on its label, 
> one would think it's the card's job to report to the driver what it 
> supports. If the driver doesn't request this, the safest bet is the lowest 
> common denominator that should be legal everywhere, 11 channels at FCC 
> spec. Got it.
> 
> Just a quick question, if I may: Are the maxpower specs of regdomain.xml in 
> dBm?  ETSI is max 20dBm ERP at 2.4GHz. Euro spec cards are only capable of 
> ~100mW anyway, most more like 60mW and your average foot of RG-174 will 
> knock nearly a dB off at 2.4GHz, so it hardly matters, but I'm curious. The 
> manpage doesn't specify what the fields mean.

maxpower are expressed as dBm.

> 
>> You can hack ral to setup a proper channel list at attach or you can 
>> make a private hack to net80211 to populate the channel list w/ those 
>> channels you want.  Either is simple.
>  
> Thank you. I'll probably try the local hack for now, but hacking ral (and 
> probably iwi now I finally have that working, which does exactly the same 
> thing) to do the right thing would be a better long-term solution.
> 
> To the list: Does anyone have any idea why the iwi firmware modules build 
> by default on i386 and not on amd64? I know from experience that manually 
> building them on 7.1 amd64 didn't work, but it now works well on 8 except 
> for the messages about mcast/promisc update separation.

I had problems w/ the iwi firmware on 64-bit so set the build to i386
only.  The problems I had were relocation errors and noone could help;
if those are gone then building the fw image for amd64 should be fine.
Whether the driver works is another matter...

	Sam


help

Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4AC92F94.4020106>