[wireless-regdb] [PATCH] wireless-regdb: add 2.4GHz regulatory rules for Cuba (CU)

[Xose Vazquez Perez]

On 09/08/2015 04:22 PM, Seth Forshee wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 03:59:38PM +0200, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
>> On 08/13/2015 04:31 PM, Seth Forshee wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 03:29:55PM +0200, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
>>>> Resolución 127, 2011 - Reglamento Banda 2,4 GHz.:
>>>> http://www.mincom.gob.cu/sites/default/files/marcoregulatorio/R%20127-11%20Reglamento%20banda%202,4%20GHz.pdf
>>>>
>>>> Cc: Seth Forshee <seth.forshee at canonical.com>
>>>> Cc: linux-wireless at vger.kernel.org
>>>> Cc: wireless-regdb at lists.infradead.org
>>>> Signed-off-by: Xose Vazquez Perez <xose.vazquez at gmail.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  db.txt | 7 +++++++
>>>>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/db.txt b/db.txt
>>>> index 982db34..2edbf90 100644
>>>> --- a/db.txt
>>>> +++ b/db.txt
>>>> @@ -275,6 +275,13 @@ country CR: DFS-FCC
>>>>  	(5490 - 5730 @ 20), (24), DFS
>>>>  	(5735 - 5835 @ 20), (30)
>>>>  
>>>> +# http://www.mincom.gob.cu/?q=marcoregulatorio
>>>> +# - Redes Informáticas
>>>> +# Resolución 127, 2011 - Reglamento Banda 2,4 GHz.
>>>> +country CU: DFS-FCC
>>>> +	(2400 - 2456 @ 40), (200 mW)
>>>> +	(2456 - 2483.5 @ 40), (200 mW)
>>>> +
>>>
>>> Based on the Google translation of the document you linked to, I don't
>>> see anything which would prevent merging these rules into one rule. Am I
>>> missing something?
>>
>> from http://www.mincom.gob.cu/sites/default/files/marcoregulatorio/R%20127-11%20Reglamento%20banda%202,4%20GHz.pdf
>> page 7:
>>
>> Artículo 4: Disposiciones de carácter técnico
>> [..]
>> 4.3.- No obstante lo anterior, los equipos que operen en las frecuencias entre 2456 y
>> 2483,5 MHz pueden emplear valores de p.i.r.e superiores, cuando ello se justifique en
>> beneficio de objetivos de interés nacional [...]
>> 4.4.- Para estos casos es necesario obtener una autorización expresa de la Agencia
>> [...]
>>
>> If you grant an authorization, for 2456-2483.5 pire can be increased.
> 
> Okay, but for the purposes of this database that provision isn't going
> to apply, and it seems you agree since you've listed both as having the
> exact same power limit. So I'd still prefer that we make it a single
> rule.

OK. Done in v2.

-thanks-