Dear all,
ETSI is publishing in the coming months an update of the EN 301 893
standard with major changes on the adaptivity and receiver blocking
tests behavior
(https://www.nts.com/ntsblog/upcoming-changes-for-wireless-equipment-in-the-5-ghz-band-en-301-893/).
The adaptivity test requirements wi
Dear all,
I am experimenting a bit with Wi-Fi Direct on top of the ath9k driver
and I am wondering if it is possible to operate at the same moment, on
the same IEEE802.11n module, a software AP for an infrastructure Wi-Fi
network (e.g. by using hostapd) and a soft AP for a Wi-Fi Direct link.
As f
--
>> De : linux-wireless-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-wireless-
>> ow...@vger.kernel.org] De la part de Adrien Decostre
>> Envoyé : lundi 27 octobre 2014 19:24
>> À : Zefir Kurtisi
>> Cc : linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org; ath9k-de...@lists.ath9k.org
>> Objet : Re:
FS channel X - assuming that one did a CAC already,
> there should be no radar device around). The certification requirements leave
> enough room for interpreting those supplemental results in one way or another.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Zefir
>
> On 10/27/2014 07:23 PM, Adrien Decostre
EN 300 328 v1.8.1. I mean, is the same pulse detector
algorithm used for DFS and for the adaptivity tests on channels 36 to
48?
Many thanks in advance for your answer.
Best regards
Adrien
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Zefir Kurtisi
wrote:
> On 10/27/2014 03:18 PM, Adrien Decostre wr
platform. Is this a right statement?
What about the CONFIG_ATH9K_DFS_CERTIFIED build options? Do we need it
to enable the detection of 0.5usec. pulses?
Thanks in advance for your answer.
Best regards
Adrien
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Zefir Kurtisi
wrote:
> On 10/24/2014 05:23 PM, Adr
Dear all,
I am looking for information about the compliancy of the ath9k driver
to the EN 300 328 ETSI regulation.
Would someone know if ath9k has already been tested for this regulation?
Is it needed to enable any specific flag in ath9k to guarantee
compliancy to the adaptivity tests describe
