Re: wireless-regdb: Update regulatory rules for Hong Kong (HK) on 5GHz and 6GHz

On Mon, Aug 17, 2026 at 2:17 PM Morgan Wong <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> Is there any problem about the patch and the reason? Any regulative
> restriction conflict ?

Sorry I haven't gotten around to it.

> Morgan Wong <[email protected]> 於 2026年8月4日週二 下午10:01寫道：
> >
> > Dear Tsai,
> >
> > The patch from git diff is now attached.
> >
> > I summarize again the changes, please decide.
> >
> > 1. 30dbm (1W) of TPC condition is applied on 5470-5730.

As previously mentioned, Linux does not support TPC, so any power limits
that require TPC do not apply. So the option is to use the "without TPC"
option that normally halves the power limit.

> > 2. Now, 320MHz bandwidth can be applied in 6GHz as WIFI 7 rolled out.

This is fine.

Do you want to do a proper Git patch? Or I will do the patch and list you
as the issue reporter.


Thanks
ChenYu

> > Chen-Yu Tsai <[email protected]> 於 2026年8月4日週二 下午8:48寫道：
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 3, 2026 at 9:38 PM Morgan Wong <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Dear all,
> > > >
> > > > Currently:
> > > >
> > > > # Source:
> > > > # https://www.ofca.gov.hk/filemanager/ofca/en/content_401/hkca1039.pdf
> > > > (2.4 GHz and 5 GHz)
> > > > # https://www.ofca.gov.hk/filemanager/ofca/en/content_401/hkca1081.pdf (6 GHz)
> > > > country HK: DFS-ETSI
> > > > (2400 - 2483.5 @ 40), (36)
> > > > (5150 - 5250 @ 80), (23), AUTO-BW, NO-OUTDOOR
> > > > (5250 - 5350 @ 80), (23), DFS, AUTO-BW, NO-OUTDOOR
> > > > (5470 - 5730 @ 160), (27), DFS
> > > > (5730 - 5850 @ 80), (36)
> > > > (5945 - 6425 @ 160), (24), NO-OUTDOOR
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Update :
> > > >
> > > > # Source:
> > > > # https://www.ofca.gov.hk/filemanager/ofca/en/content_401/hkca1039.pdf
> > > > (2.4 GHz and 5 GHz)
> > > > # https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part-15/subpart-E
> > > > (2.4 GHz and 5 GHz)
> > > > # https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_en/301800_301899/301893/02.00.07_20/en_301893v020007a.pdf
> > > > (2.4 GHz and 5 GHz)
> > > > # https://www.ofca.gov.hk/filemanager/ofca/en/content_401/hkca1081.pdf (6 GHz)
> > > > # https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_en/303600_303699/303687/01.00.00_20/en_303687v010000a.pdf
> > > > (6GHz)
> > > > country HK: DFS-ETSI
> > > > (2400 - 2483.5 @ 40), (36)
> > > > (5150 - 5250 @ 80), (23), AUTO-BW, NO-OUTDOOR
> > > > (5250 - 5350 @ 80), (23), DFS, AUTO-BW, NO-OUTDOOR
> > > > (5470 - 5730 @ 160), (30), DFS
> > > > (5730 - 5850 @ 80), (36)
> > > > (5945 - 6425 @ 320), (23), NO-OUTDOOR
> > >
> > > Please do a proper patch or at least diff. This is hard to spot differences.
> > > And if it's not a patch it's more work.
> > >
> > > > Reason for change in 5470-5730 :
> > > > The HK department, OFCA has its own requirement, 30dbm in addition to
> > > > EITHER fulfilling FCC OR ETSI requirement. The rationale behind is
> > > > having the biggest tolerance among major world standards to be an
> > > > international city. The OFCA, 30dbm is the baseline value to be
> > > > fulfilled in the highest priority.
> > > >
> > > > About FCC
> > > > 27dbm (500mW) without TPC, 30dbm (1W) with TPC
> > > > # https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/part-15/subpart-E#p-15.407(h)(1)
> > > >
> > > > About UTSI (same as FCC)
> > > > 27dbm (500mW) without TPC, 30dbm (1W) with TPC
> > > > # https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_en/301800_301899/301893/02.00.07_20/en_301893v020007a.pdf
> > > > (page 17)
> > > >
> > > > A TPC (30dbm), 802.11h edition should be taken instead of 27dbm as I suggest.
> > > > Or a TPC regulation flag may be a good idea to bind with 30dbm together.
> > >
> > > There is no TPC flag, hence the limit is set at 27 dBm.
> > >
> > > > Reason for change in  5945 - 6425 :
> > > > The HK department, OFCA requires to have its own EIPR limit, 24dbm in
> > > > addition to ETSI 23dbm.
> > > > Therefore, the smaller value should be taken.
> > > > (6GHz in HK requires no reference to FCC standards, unlike 5GHz situation)
> > > > WIFI 7 allows 320MHz, the previous value, 160MHz was in wifi 6E era.
> > > >
> > > > # https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_en/303600_303699/303687/01.00.00_20/en_303687v010000a.pdf
> > > > (page 17)
> > >
> > > You mentioned in your reply that this change is invalid.
> > >
> > >
> > > So to summarize, I don't see any change at all.
> > >
> > >
> > > ChenYu
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> >
> > Morgan Wong
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Morgan Wong