[ath9k-devel] [PATCH] ath9k: Support 4.9Ghz channels on AR9580 adapter.

Hi Jouni,

On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 7:41 PM, Jouni Malinen <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 11:02:20AM +1000, Julian Calaby wrote:
>> I've only done this work as I hate to see people's efforts go to
>> waste and I feel that there's enough roadblocks in the way of
>> actually using this functionality that casual idiots won't be able
>> to.
>
> Are these really ready to go to the upstream kernel in this state and
> without the other changes that would be needed to operate correctly?
> What is the use case for these and how have these been tested?

This patch is a edited version (adding the Kconfig option) of Ben's
patch. I picked it up as he seemed to have given up on it and I could
see nothing directly wrong with the patch.

>> This is compile tested only as I cannot test this for real as I lack
>> both the hardware and license required.
>
> I don't think this is sufficient when touching this type of area. I
> would not apply these without proper testing and full set of
> functionality being available. I see no point in ath9k defining
> additional channels if all those new channels can cause is harm and not
> correct functionality. This channel list addition looks like the easiest
> part to handle compared to the other patches needed for 4.9 GHz and this
> would be the last patch on my list to get accepted..

It isn't, Ben himself has said that fractional MHz need to be
supported for this to be 100% correct, however I believe that defining
the channels is minimally sufficient for his purposes. I do know he's
done more work than this, however I can't pick that up as getting it
ready for upstream requires testing I can't do.

>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/common-init.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/common-init.c
>> +#ifdef ATH9K_49_GHZ_CHAN
>> +     /* 4.9Ghz channels, public safety channels, license is required in US
>> +      * and most other regulatory domains!
>> +      */
>> +     CHAN5G(4915, 38), /* Channel 183 */
>> +     CHAN5G(4920, 39), /* Channel 184 */
>> +     CHAN5G(4925, 40), /* Channel 185 */
>> +     CHAN5G(4935, 41), /* Channel 187 */
>> +     CHAN5G(4940, 42), /* Channel 188 */
>> +     CHAN5G(4945, 43), /* Channel 189 */
>> +     CHAN5G(4960, 44), /* Channel 192 */
>> +     CHAN5G(4970, 45), /* Channel 194 */
>> +     CHAN5G(4980, 46), /* Channel 196 */
>
> Where are these channels defined and are these really correct
> frequencies for them? Please note that many of the 4.9 GHz channels have
> channel starting frequencies like 4.9375 GHz and 4.0025 GHz, i.e.,
> fractional MHz.. While US public safety may not have all those cases,
> even there are some 0.5 MHz cases. In addition, those channel numbers
> sound more like some of the channels defined in Japan rather than US
> public safety operating class. In addition, some of these channels seem
> to be outside the US public safety range.