RE: Broadcom BCM4306/BCM2050 support

RE: Broadcom BCM4306/BCM2050 support

[bas.mevissen]

> (..) And as Alan and myself have been
> talking to upper management entities at various wireless card
> companies we know the real reason has to do with making regulation
> agencies happy.  They do have drivers, and they do want to publish
> them and yes they recognize that this will expose a lot of their
> IP and they accept that.

OK. So at least they are open to it. Maybe they should drop a binary somewhere to get a start. It's not what you want in the long term, but I think good enough for now. Then we should work something out for the frequency settings.

What about the access points? There is nothing dangerous to set, so that information (or drivers and applications) can be given free. Does anyone know more about this?

I tried to get some info from an Edimax AP, but no success (yet). They used a PRISM chipset, but their own microcontroller and stuff for the USB instead of the chip from Intersil. So I guess that that will become difficult.

Regards,

Bas.

RE: Broadcom BCM4306/BCM2050 support

[Martin List-Petersen]

>> (..) And as Alan and myself have been
>> talking to upper management entities at various wireless card
>> companies we know the real reason has to do with making regulation
>> agencies happy.  They do have drivers, and they do want to publish
>> them and yes they recognize that this will expose a lot of their
>> IP and they accept that.
>
> OK. So at least they are open to it. Maybe they should drop a binary
somewhere
> to get a start. It's not what you want in the long term, but I think good 
> enough for now. Then we should work something out for the frequency settings.

I totally agree on this. A binary driver could better than nothing at this
point. Another thing that wonders me, is why companies like Broadcom, if they
are so open to releasing the drivers at some point, where they can make the
regulation agencies somewhat happy, are so ignorant then. I've heard of serveral
people, that tried to get a statement on the possibilty for Linux drivers from
then and the return is nothing. I've actually tried myself. No response at all.

Regards,
Martin List-Petersen
martin at list-petersen dot dk
--
knowledge, n.:
	Things you believe.

Re: Broadcom BCM4306/BCM2050 support

[David S. Miller]

On Tue, 2003-04-29 at 07:40, Stuffed Crust wrote:
> RF tables and regulation might be an excuse chipset companies use to
> hide their specs, but the real reasons tend to be a bit more along the
> lines of:
> 
> "We want to protect our valuable IP"
> 
> ...which translates to:
> 
> "We want to protect our violations of other people's valuable IP"
> 
> It's CYA, plain and simple.

This is very far from the truth.  And as Alan and myself have been
talking to upper management entities at various wireless card
companies we know the real reason has to do with making regulation
agencies happy.  They do have drivers, and they do want to publish
them and yes they recognize that this will expose a lot of their
IP and they accept that.

-- 
David S. Miller <davem@redhat.com>

Re: Broadcom BCM4306/BCM2050 support

[Oliver Neukum]

Am Dienstag, 29. April 2003 18:58 schrieb harry:
> A Penguin wrote:
> >In the UK, for instance, one has to purchase a license to
> >use a receiver (you know, some Sony Walkman). This is, in my
> >opinion, extremely repressive. It would be nice for somebody
> >to start suing the BBC (and others) to recover damages for
> >the criminal trespass of "their" radio signals onto private
> >property. After a few such lawsuits, the ownership of such
> >broadcast signals would revert to the public, just like in
> >the US.
>
> You need a licence to drive a car and a licence to operate a
> computer - now that's really repressive !

That is the point. You need a license to operate a car on public
roads. Ownership or operation on your own property is only
your business.

	Regards
		Oliver

Re: Broadcom BCM4306/BCM2050 support

[harry]

A Penguin wrote:
>In the UK, for instance, one has to purchase a license to
>use a receiver (you know, some Sony Walkman). This is, in my
>opinion, extremely repressive. It would be nice for somebody
>to start suing the BBC (and others) to recover damages for
>the criminal trespass of "their" radio signals onto private
>property. After a few such lawsuits, the ownership of such
>broadcast signals would revert to the public, just like in
>the US.

You need a licence to drive a car and a licence to operate a 
computer - now that's really repressive !

(M$, GPL or roll your own, it's much the same..)

An Other Penguin wrote:
>Patents and copyrights need to be fixed, not destroyed.

hear, here.

harry.
--
Truth is a commodity? I just don't buy it.

Re: Broadcom BCM4306/BCM2050 support

[Nicholas Berry]

>>> Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> 04/29/03 09:18AM >>>
> > On Maw, 2003-04-29 at 14:26, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> > therefore different regulations exist in many other countries.
> > In the UK, for instance, one has to purchase a license to
> > use a receiver (you know, some Sony Walkman). 

> Wrong. You need a license to receive terrestrial TV but that is
> rather different and relates to both cultural and historical tax
> differences in philosophy between the US and UK.

<snip>
> Alan

And the reason is not repression, it is that the BBC is publicly funded. The licence
fee is what pays for the BBC. And produces programming infinitely better that the
total crap we get here in the US.

Nik

Re: Broadcom BCM4306/BCM2050 support

[Stuffed Crust]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 901 bytes --]

On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 02:18:10PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> transmissions then its ultimately poor police security, if you transmit
> on their frequency then its a lot more serious because you might
> interfere with emergency services.

Nevermind the fact that you can arm yourself with an electronics 
book, walk into radio shack, and with a couple hours of work have a 
pretty powerful jammer on the order of a few watts.   Compared to the 
30mW of a typical wireless card (and no amount of soft-radioing will 
change that..)

If you're out to cause malice, you don't need to hotwire your spiffy new 
centrino.   

 - Pizza [preaching to the choir, I know...]
-- 
Solomon Peachy                                   pizza@f*cktheusers.org
                                                           ICQ #1318444
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur                 Melbourne, FL

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 232 bytes --]

Re: Broadcom BCM4306/BCM2050 support

[Stuffed Crust]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2012 bytes --]

On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 02:51:12PM +0200, bas.mevissen@hetnet.nl wrote:
> > Don't expect specs or opensource drivers for any of these pieces
> > of hardware until these vendors figure out a way to hide the frequency
> > programming interface.
> 
> What did Intersil do? How did the linux-wlan-ng project handle this?

The linux-wlan-ng project only handles the prism2/2.5/3 chipsets, which 
are *extremely* well documented (and 2.4G-only), so there really isn't 
anything to "handle"; from the driver perspective  you just say "give 
me channel X" and that's it.   If the eeprom-based tables say you can 
use the channel, it lets you; otherwise it's No Soup For You.  

Intersil is a poor example; they've generally been quite forthcoming
with documentation.  Granted, the docs for the PrismGT/etc stuff are
pretty bad, but you can get them without selling your soul. 

(it's also worth mentioning that Intersil partially funded
linux-wlan-ng's development)
 
RF tables and regulation might be an excuse chipset companies use to
hide their specs, but the real reasons tend to be a bit more along the
lines of:

"We want to protect our valuable IP"

...which translates to:

"We want to protect our violations of other people's valuable IP"

It's CYA, plain and simple.  They're so terrified of litigation that 
they feel that *any* semi-public information (even if only source code) 
is a threat. 

Many of them genuinely want to provide Linux support, in the form of
binary drivers much like Windows has.  Then they balk when realizing
what a support hell (and $$$) it will be to pull it off without
providing source code, thanks to the monolothic nature of the Linux
kernel. 

Or at least that's been my experience in the past year.

 - Pizza
-- 
Solomon Peachy                                   pizza@f*cktheusers.org
                                                           ICQ #1318444
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur                 Melbourne, FL

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 232 bytes --]

Re: Broadcom BCM4306/BCM2050 support

[Carl-Daniel Hailfinger]

Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, Martin List-Petersen wrote:
> 
> 
>>Citat Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.kernel.2003@gmx.net>:
>>
>>
>>>>So don't blame the vendors on this one, several of them would love
>>>>to publish drivers public for their cards, but simply cannot with
>>>>upsetting federal regulators.
>>>
>>>/me wants binary only driver for these cards to build opensource driver
>>>with ability to set "interesting" frequency range.
>>>
>>
>>It's there for Windows :) So ...
> 
> 
> Contrary to popular opinion, there is no FCC regulation prohibiting
> one from receiving some particular frequency. There is, however, a

Contrary to popular opinion, not everybody lives in the US.
Here in Germany, receiving some particular frequencies (e.g. those used
by the police) was prohibited a few years ago (I don't know exactly if
they changed the law). The argument was that some receiver types emitted
a weak signal on the frequency they were listening to (and could be
tuned to become a private radio station) which could interfere with the
low-power police devices. However, it was simply not sensible to
prohibit all radios, so they were constained to a specific frequency range.

Regards,
Carl-Daniel
-- 
http://www.hailfinger.org/

RE: Broadcom BCM4306/BCM2050 support

[Alan Cox]

On Maw, 2003-04-29 at 12:06, David S. Miller wrote:
> Don't expect specs or opensource drivers for any of these pieces
> of hardware until these vendors figure out a way to hide the frequency
> programming interface.

People are already cracking the windows interfaces on them

> The only halfway plausible idea I've seen is to not document the
> frequency programming registers, and users get a "region" key file that
> has opaque register values to program into the appropriate registers.
> The file is per-region (one for US, Germany, etc.)and the wireless
> kernel driver reads in this file to do the frequency programming.

I talked to one vendor about this stuff and fingers crossed we will see
open drivers except for the radio module. In the longer term I suspect
vendors will move to signed register sets, so you can load "US 802.11g"
but you can't load "police frequency, full power"

> So don't blame the vendors on this one, several of them would love
> to publish drivers public for their cards, but simply cannot with
> upsetting federal regulators.

And non US ones too. The fact people are already abusing the technology
suggests that they will be forced to go the crypted settings route for
next generation hardware anyway.

Alan

Re: Broadcom BCM4306/BCM2050 support

[Richard B. Johnson]

On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, Martin List-Petersen wrote:

> Citat Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.kernel.2003@gmx.net>:
>
> > > So don't blame the vendors on this one, several of them would love
> > > to publish drivers public for their cards, but simply cannot with
> > > upsetting federal regulators.
> >
> > /me wants binary only driver for these cards to build opensource driver
> > with ability to set "interesting" frequency range.
> >
>
> It's there for Windows :) So ...

Contrary to popular opinion, there is no FCC regulation prohibiting
one from receiving some particular frequency. There is, however, a
federal law prohibiting the disclosure of a radio message by a
third party. This means that the media, or even law enforcement
can't listen to a private radio (cell phone) conversation and
then disclose its content. At one time, cell phones used FM
at 960 MHz. This could be readily received by receivers designed
for Amateur Radio use. For a time, the FCC refused to Type Approve
receivers that cover these frequencies. However, most Hams know
how to fix their receivers so they can receive whatever they want
and Type Approval was only required for receivers that were designed
to be sold. You could build anything you want for yourself. This
refusal to Type Approve receivers was a trick to make the usual
receiver owner think that there was some dumb regulation when,
in fact, under the Communications Act of 1934 (as amended), there
can't be such a regulation without creating a new public law, which
hasn't happened and probably will not.

Recently, some broadcast satellite companies have tried to
get the FCC to declare that their transmissions are private
and unauthorized reception should be unlawful. The FCC has
continually postponed any such declaration because, if once
broadcast, a radio signal doesn't become public, then anybody
could sue every radio transmitter operator to prevent the
trespass of "their" signals onto private property.
You can't have it both ways, either radio signals are public
and, therefore cannot commit a trespass, or they are private
and can.

But, unlike some other countries regulators, the FCC has
steadfastly refused to allow broadcasters, even satellite
broadcasters, to pursue such extortion. Basically, once
a signal leaves an antenna, it becomes public property.

The same is not true for cable and "guided waves". Satellite
broadcasters have not been able to convince the FCC that
their transmissions are "guided waves". However, some private
RF link companies signals, including some that use satellites,
are considered "guided waves" and cannot be used without
permission.

Various commercial interests have convinced governments of
many other countries that they "own" their radio signals and
therefore different regulations exist in many other countries.
In the UK, for instance, one has to purchase a license to
use a receiver (you know, some Sony Walkman). This is, in my
opinion, extremely repressive. It would be nice for somebody
to start suing the BBC (and others) to recover damages for
the criminal trespass of "their" radio signals onto private
property. After a few such lawsuits, the ownership of such
broadcast signals would revert to the public, just like in
the US.

Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.4.20 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips).
Why is the government concerned about the lunatic fringe? Think about it.

Re: Broadcom BCM4306/BCM2050 support

[Alan Cox]

On Maw, 2003-04-29 at 14:26, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> therefore different regulations exist in many other countries.
> In the UK, for instance, one has to purchase a license to
> use a receiver (you know, some Sony Walkman). 

Wrong. You need a license to receive terrestrial TV but that is
rather different and relates to both cultural and historical tax
differences in philosophy between the US and UK.

The big problem with 'soft' radios is transmit. You can hotwire
your centrino. People in the UK are already trying to use US drivers
in Windows XP because "they go further". If you listen to police
transmissions then its ultimately poor police security, if you transmit
on their frequency then its a lot more serious because you might
interfere with emergency services.

Alan

RE: Broadcom BCM4306/BCM2050 support

[Martin List-Petersen]

Citat bas.mevissen@hetnet.nl:
 
> > /me wants binary only driver for these cards to build opensource driver
> > with ability to set "interesting" frequency range.
>
> > Carl-Daniel
>
> But I don't want to read in the papers that Linux was used as an illegal
> hacker tool to snoop into mil stuff...

Ehh .. no .. probably wouldn't be nice, but you cat do stuff like that on any
OS, so that doesn't really matter.

For my case, i would be glad if I just could do 802.11b on these cards right
now. 802.11g and 802.11a would be nice though.

However, if it is like that (the chip supports all frequencies), that would
mean, that a TrueMobile 1300 and TrueMobile 1400 practically is the same card.
(TM1300: 802.11b/g, TM1400: 802.11a/b/g)

Another thing about the TM1400 is, that it has 2 MAC adresses, but that's
probably due to, that 802.11a operates on another frequency than 802.11b/g (one
MAC is assigned to 802.11a, the other one to 802.11g).

Regards,
Martin List-Petersen
martin at list-petersen dot dk
-- 
The probability of someone watching you is proportional to the
stupidity of your action. 

RE: Broadcom BCM4306/BCM2050 support

[bas.mevissen]

David S. Miller wrote:

> Don't expect specs or opensource drivers for any of these pieces
> of hardware until these vendors figure out a way to hide the frequency
> programming interface.

What did Intersil do? How did the linux-wlan-ng project handle this?

> The only halfway plausible idea I've seen is to not document the
> frequency programming registers, and users get a "region" key file that
> has opaque register values to program into the appropriate registers.
> The file is per-region (one for US, Germany, etc.)and the wireless
> kernel driver reads in this file to do the frequency programming.

Here in The Netherlands, it is quite common to use a US version of Windows and to keep (most of)  the regional settings of the US. So on Windows, most of the time the region is likely to be wrong. I gues that in cases where things are critical, a different firmware version is used. 

It is not really a practical problem however, because the allowed frequencies have become pretty the same over time. The same applies to modems: they are also country-specific. But in practice, it is not really a concern.

But how to go furter with this? Does someone have contacts within Broadcom?

Regards,

Bas.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RE: Broadcom BCM4306/BCM2050 support

[bas.mevissen]

> /me wants binary only driver for these cards to build opensource driver
> with ability to set "interesting" frequency range.

> Carl-Daniel

But I don't want to read in the papers that Linux was used as an illegal hacker tool to snoop into mil stuff...

(and then no help from the chip manufacturers anymore...)

Regards,

Bas.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Broadcom BCM4306/BCM2050 support

[Grzegorz Jaskiewicz]

On Tue, 2003-04-29 at 13:12, Martin List-Petersen wrote:
> Citat Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.kernel.2003@gmx.net>:
> 
> > > So don't blame the vendors on this one, several of them would love
> > > to publish drivers public for their cards, but simply cannot with
> > > upsetting federal regulators.

Well, there are guys that are able to change this frequency without open
documentation - so it is just not good argument. 
I will rather say that this is misdesign - allowing to do more than is
allowed....
 

-- 
Grzegorz Jaskiewicz <gj@pointblue.com.pl>
K4 Labs

Re: Broadcom BCM4306/BCM2050 support

[Martin List-Petersen]

Citat Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.kernel.2003@gmx.net>:

> > So don't blame the vendors on this one, several of them would love
> > to publish drivers public for their cards, but simply cannot with
> > upsetting federal regulators.
> 
> /me wants binary only driver for these cards to build opensource driver
> with ability to set "interesting" frequency range.
> 

It's there for Windows :) So ... 

Regards,
Martin List-Petersen
martin at list-petersen dot dk
--
last|perl -pe '$_ x=/(..:..)...(.*)/&&"''"ge&&"''"lt'
That's gonna be tough for Randal to beat...  :-)
             -- Larry Wall in  <1991Apr29.072206.5621@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov>

Re: Broadcom BCM4306/BCM2050 support

[Carl-Daniel Hailfinger]

David S. Miller wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-04-28 at 23:16, Martin List-Petersen wrote:
> 
>>>I couldn't find any Linux support for these WLAN chips with 
>>>google or on this lists archives. So I would like to ask it here:
>>
>>It seems, that the specs haven't been released yet. There are quite a few Wlan
>>cards out there based on the Broadcom chips (nearly all cards, that support
>>802.11g), so it's quite a shame. (Actually this fits the the TrueMobile 1180,
>>1300 and 1400, speaking of Dell wireless lan cards).
> 
> ...
> 
>>The same problem is with the Intel Prowireless 2100 (Centrino) WLan card. No
>>Linux support available yet, which is another choice for the Dell notebooks at
>>the moment.
> 
> 
> Don't expect specs or opensource drivers for any of these pieces
> of hardware until these vendors figure out a way to hide the frequency
> programming interface.
> 
> Ie. these cards can be programmed to transmit at any frequency,
> and various government agencies don't like it when f.e. users can
> transmit on military frequencies and stuff like that.

Cool.

> The only halfway plausible idea I've seen is to not document the
> frequency programming registers, and users get a "region" key file that
> has opaque register values to program into the appropriate registers.
> The file is per-region (one for US, Germany, etc.)and the wireless
> kernel driver reads in this file to do the frequency programming.
> 
> So don't blame the vendors on this one, several of them would love
> to publish drivers public for their cards, but simply cannot with
> upsetting federal regulators.

/me wants binary only driver for these cards to build opensource driver
with ability to set "interesting" frequency range.


Carl-Daniel
-- 
http://www.hailfinger.org/

RE: Broadcom BCM4306/BCM2050 support

[David S. Miller]

On Mon, 2003-04-28 at 23:16, Martin List-Petersen wrote:
> > I couldn't find any Linux support for these WLAN chips with 
> > google or on this lists archives. So I would like to ask it here:
> 
> It seems, that the specs haven't been released yet. There are quite a few Wlan
> cards out there based on the Broadcom chips (nearly all cards, that support
> 802.11g), so it's quite a shame. (Actually this fits the the TrueMobile 1180,
> 1300 and 1400, speaking of Dell wireless lan cards).
...
> The same problem is with the Intel Prowireless 2100 (Centrino) WLan card. No
> Linux support available yet, which is another choice for the Dell notebooks at
> the moment.

Don't expect specs or opensource drivers for any of these pieces
of hardware until these vendors figure out a way to hide the frequency
programming interface.

Ie. these cards can be programmed to transmit at any frequency,
and various government agencies don't like it when f.e. users can
transmit on military frequencies and stuff like that.

The only halfway plausible idea I've seen is to not document the
frequency programming registers, and users get a "region" key file that
has opaque register values to program into the appropriate registers.
The file is per-region (one for US, Germany, etc.)and the wireless
kernel driver reads in this file to do the frequency programming.

So don't blame the vendors on this one, several of them would love
to publish drivers public for their cards, but simply cannot with
upsetting federal regulators.

-- 
David S. Miller <davem@redhat.com>

RE: Broadcom BCM4306/BCM2050 support

[Martin List-Petersen]

> I couldn't find any Linux support for these WLAN chips with 
> google or on this lists archives. So I would like to ask it here:

It seems, that the specs haven't been released yet. There are quite a few Wlan
cards out there based on the Broadcom chips (nearly all cards, that support
802.11g), so it's quite a shame. (Actually this fits the the TrueMobile 1180,
1300 and 1400, speaking of Dell wireless lan cards).

> Is there somebody working on a Linux driver for the Broadcom 
> BCM4306/BCM2050 chips? They are used for instance in the 
> built-in Dell TrueMobile 1300 Wireless LAN PCI card that is 
> sold for Dell notebooks. I've ordered a Dell Inspiron 8500 
> with such thing in it. (had to choose Dell and the i8500 was 
> the best choice at the moment).

The same problem is with the Intel Prowireless 2100 (Centrino) WLan card. No
Linux support available yet, which is another choice for the Dell notebooks at
the moment.

> I read on 
> <http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/G.Wilford/Inspiron8500>
>  that the Ethernet chip (BCM4401) is support by a Broadcom driver and a brand
> new one from Daved S. Miller.

The ethernet chip is supported both by the BCM5700 and the Tigon3 drivers. It's
basically the same chipset family, that Dell has used in their servers for quite
a while and since these are delivered with Linux of the factory, the driver has
been around for quite a while.

> So I'm wondering if Broadcom is willing to release specs for the WLAN chips 
> too.

Not so far. There is a petition here on exactly that issue:
http://www.petitiononline.com/BCM4301/petition.html

> How are the experiences in contacting Broadcom and Dell with requests for
> help?

Dell won't be able to help you at the moment, since Linux on notebooks is
supported on a "best effort" basis, but not delivered with the notebooks of
factory. So no demand for drivers here. 

I've tried to contact Broadcom directly, but they are just ignoring mails
containing the word "Linux", so it seems.

Regards,
Martin List-Petersen
martin at list-petersen dot dk
--
Stop searching.  Happiness is right next to you.  Now, if they'd only
take a bath ...

Broadcom BCM4306/BCM2050 support

[bas.mevissen]

Hi all,

I couldn't find any Linux support for these WLAN chips with google or on this lists archives. So I would like to ask it here:

Is there somebody working on a Linux driver for the Broadcom BCM4306/BCM2050 chips? They are used for instance in the built-in Dell TrueMobile 1300 Wireless LAN PCI card that is sold for Dell notebooks. I've ordered a Dell Inspiron 8500 with such thing in it. (had to choose Dell and the i8500 was the best choice at the moment).

I read on <http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/G.Wilford/Inspiron8500>that the Ethernet chip (BCM4401) is support by a Broadcom driver and a brand new one from Daved S. Miller. So I'm wondering if Broadcom is willing to release specs for the WLAN chips too.

How are the experiences in contacting Broadcom and Dell with requests for help?

Regards,

Bas.

(note: please CC to me as I'm not on the list at the moment)


You might also reply to linux-kernel@basmevissen.nl.