Message ID | 20250218025957.13818-1-pkshih@gmail.com |
---|---|
State | Superseded |
Headers | show |
Series | wireless-regdb: Update regulatory rules for Iran (IR) on both 2.4 and 5Ghz for 2019 | expand |
Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> wrote: > > On Tue, 2025-02-18 at 13:29 +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: > > There are NO-INDOOR and NO-OUTDOOR flags for the database. The kernel > > doesn't have a matching IEEE80211_CHAN_OUTDOOR_ONLY flag though. > > Maybe that should be added? > > > > Johannes, what do you think? > > Good question. I guess we could have it, though I'm not sure we'd have > any mechanics to actually _use_ such a thing right now? Something, say > hostapd (?) would have to promise it's actually outdoors? > > More information doesn't hurt and I don't mind adding it at all, but I > do think we'd probably not be able to use it at this time. > > Or we could add it to the db.txt file but ignore it in parsing now and > skip the band for the binary for now? > > The thing is I don't think we have a good way to say "older kernel skips > this range" - or perhaps we set the NO_IR flag so older kernel cannot > use it but then allow OUTDOOR_ONLY to override that given some > conditions? > Thanks for the suggestion. I have made a patch to allow NO-INDOOR flag, but not parse into binary. Since I'm very not familiar with Python, please review the patch carefully. Thank you.
diff --git a/db.txt b/db.txt index d56ad32d31c9..0189355dff17 100644 --- a/db.txt +++ b/db.txt @@ -934,9 +934,12 @@ country IN: (5470 - 5725 @ 160), (24), DFS (5725 - 5875 @ 80), (30) -country IR: DFS-JP - (2402 - 2482 @ 40), (20) - (5735 - 5835 @ 80), (30) +# Source: +# https://asnad.cra.ir/fa/Public/Documents/Details/73af8590-f065-eb11-968f-0050569b0899 +country IR: DFS-ETSI + (2400 - 2483.5 @ 40), (100 mW) + (5150 - 5250 @ 80), (200 mW) + (5250 - 5350 @ 80), (200 mW), DFS # IS as part of CEPT accepted decisions 2005/513/EC (5GHz RLAN, EN 301 893) # and 2006/771/EC (amended by 2008/432/EC, Short-Range Devices, EN 300 440)