[PATCH] Revert "ath: add support for special 0x0 regulatory domain"

Kalle Valo kvalo at codeaurora.org
Thu Aug 27 06:12:34 EDT 2020

Alvin Šipraga <alsi at bang-olufsen.dk> writes:

> Hi Kalle,
> On 7/30/20 2:49 PM, Alvin Šipraga wrote:
>> This reverts commit 2dc016599cfa9672a147528ca26d70c3654a5423.
>> Per Atheros documentation to manufacturers, the EEPROM regulatory domain
>> code 0x0 must always map to "US". In particular, it should not map to a
>> custom world regulatory domain. For references, see [1] and [2] below.
>> Furthermore, __ath_regd_init() has a specific condition to set the
>> country code to "US" in this case, which emits the following log
>> message:
>> [    7.814307] ath: EEPROM indicates default country code should be used
>> The patch being reverted mistakenly maps 0x0 to the custom world
>> regulatory domain 0x64 - the most restrictive of the world regulatory
>> domains. The premise of the patch is that in the case of EEPROM
>> regulatory domain code 0x0, ath_is_world_regd() should return true. But,
>> as stated above, 0x0 should not map to a world regulatory domain, and so
>> the function should return false. The original behaviour, whereby
>> NL80211_REGDOM_SET_BY_COUNTRY_IE is ignored, was correct according to
>> the manufacturer's intent and should not have been changed.
>> [1] https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/users/drivers/ath#the_0x0_regulatory_domain
>> [2] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.wireless.general/38410
>> Fixes: 2dc016599cfa ("ath: add support for special 0x0 regulatory domain")
>> Cc: Wen Gong <wgong at codeaurora.org>
>> Cc: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof at kernel.org>
>> Cc: linux-wireless at vger.kernel.org
>> Tested-on: QCA9880 hw2.0 PCI 10.2.4-1.0-00047
>> Signed-off-by: Alvin Šipraga <alsi at bang-olufsen.dk>
>> ---
>>   drivers/net/wireless/ath/regd.c | 10 +++++-----
>>   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> Do you have any feedback on this patch? No problem if you simply have
> not looked yet - I am not sure what kind of lead time to expect on the
> list. But without the patch, a (correctly) programmed 0x0 (US) card
> will not be able to operate on 5GHz channels without some hacking. I
> have cited some references to justify reverting this patch, so I would
> like to know if anything further should be done to get this into
> future kernels?
> I wonder also if Wen Gong could comment, whose patch I am reverting in
> the first place. Maybe there is something I am missing?

I'm working on it, I just need to check something internally first.

BTW, Brian submitted an identical revert first so I'm planning to use
his patch instead of yours:



More information about the ath10k mailing list