Message-Id: <1425483570.3947119.235432705.0D7855AE@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Date:	Wed, 04 Mar 2015 07:39:30 -0800
From:	"Nikita N." <nikitan@...ramail.com>
To:	Arend van Spriel <arend@...adcom.com>
Cc:	hauke@...ke-m.de, brcm80211-dev-list@...adcom.com,
	linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
	Pat Erley <pat-lkml@...ey.org>, brudley@...adcom.com,
	Franky Lin <frankyl@...adcom.com>, meuleman@...adcom.com,
	linville@...driver.com, pieterpg@...adcom.com, hdegoede@...hat.com,
	wens@...e.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: brcmsmac not compliant to 802.11 for BCM4313

Dear Arend,
as followup to my last inquiry, since it's passed more than 2 weeks, I'm
afraid I didn't receive any answer.
As from subject, I finally discovered that brcmsmac is not compliant to
802.11 regulations for BCM4313.
So, as purchasing customer, and member of Linux users community, I try
to propose my questions to you again now, 3 in total:
 
1) Regulatory domain - you wrote "brcmsmac does assure tx power is
within regulatory limits by enforcing a world regulatory domain"
That affirmation is *FALSE*.
I spent the whole weekend putting brcmsmac under heavy trace, all
functions, above all the phy ones.
Some code "supposes" to enforce a regulatory domain, but the effect is
total null.
I tried recompile the regulatory domain database, those functions did
not retrieve the new values.
Whatever values I set for domain 00, the effect was null - BCM4313 kept
functioning independently.
The functions, phy and not, which are "supposed" to set the eeprom
registries for regdomain enforce, have effect null - the BCM4313 kept
functioning independently.
I tried setting random numbers in those functions and registries, the
effect was null - the BCM4313 kept functioning independently.
At the edge of my frustration, I started commenting away from the code
those whole phy functions, the effect was null again - the BCM4313 kept
functioning independently.
I don't know for what Broadcom hw device were written and *tested* those
functions - but sure is, they do *NOT* work for BCM4313.
Could you please explain how/where the BCM4313 is supposed to "enforcing
a world regulatory domain" ?

2) MCS - 11n modulated frames are not detected in BCM4313 monitor mode -
I informed you about this issue more than 1 year ago, and again 2 weeks
ago.
The issue still reproduces, and no sign of any fix.
When/in what backports version, this issue is supposed to be fixed
finally?

3) I explicitly purchased this BCM4313 already 1 year ago, with the
following specs: 0x4313 rev 0x01 package 0x08, 3 cores ChipCommon,
IEEE802.11 and PCIe.
I have been searching for any technical datasheet specification document
about BCM4313 on Broadcom website and others.
Did not find any.
Could you please send me a detailed technical datasheet specification
document about BCM4313, for programming/dev purposes?

Thank you & Greetings



On Tue, Feb 17, 2015, at 01:03 AM, Nikita N. wrote:
> Hi Arend,
>  
> > brcmsmac does assure tx power is within regulatory limits by enforcing a 
> > world regulatory domain. So what is not supported is modifying tx power 
> > settings through user-space.
> 
> Yes, I believe that could be right, *a* world regulatory domain looks
> indeed enforced, the USA one only, which is pre-set default inside
> EEPROM registries device, isn't it?
>  
> > I know, but that driver is not fully open-source as it links in a binary 
> > blob.
> 
> AFAIK, also brcmsmac needs at least 2 firmware files to operate, without
> those nothing works.
> Isn't it the same concept?
>  
> > I totally lost track of this one. I am using brcmsmac in monitor mode 
> > using bcm43224 which captures 11n frames just fine. I will give it a try 
> > with a bcm4313. The assoc response in your capture shows undefined MCS 
> > set so maybe there really are no 11n MCS rates used (?).
> 
> If that was a suggestion about to purchase a bcm43224 or any other
> Broadcom Corp. product, isn't really convincing, seen the overall
> support quality Customers are experiencing in here...
> About my capture file, in the case it was really incomplete someone
> could have informed me at least a year ago.
> But anyway no respectable QA Testing team needs a purchasing Customer to
> help in verifying such enormous issue, isn't it? 
>  
> > Our team consist of two man working full-time on the upstream linux 
> > drivers. So our "customer care" is something that we try to deal with on 
> > the side and admittedly things slip between the cracks.
> 
> Really, *TWO* men? Are you kidding? Is that how much Broadcom Corp.
> values the Linux community?
> Needles to remind, even if Linux users don't pay for the OS license as
> Windows do, they do pay allright for any Broadcom hardware they
> purchase!
> Internet startups which sell a button on internet, they have Dev and QA
> team 5 times bigger than that!
> I sense a very gross capacity and resource planning competence issue in
> here.
> I kindly ask you, please forward that mail to your higher Managers, on
> my personal behalf, Thanks.
> 
> -- 
> http://www.fastmail.com - Same, same, but different...
> 

-- 
http://www.fastmail.com - Or how I learned to stop worrying and
                          love email again

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists