Need New DavidC502 Thread

it shows how long I've been out the loop I didn't realise that the AC series have been focused in to only 3 available builds , Stable , Development and Davids build . This simplifies things, which is good. It would appear that Davids build is still the Best build for me, development build with added customisation.

Thanks for your help @JW0914

@Linuxmarvel It's not so much that it's been focused down to three builds, but that the only user who's maintained a working repo, willing to troubleshoot issues in their builds if anything goes wrong, is @davidc502 (of the original three that were listed).

  • We used to have 3 users who offered complete 3rd party builds, however one simply disappeared ~2yrs ago, and after ~6 months of no updates to their repo, their section was removed as it was no longer maintained.

  • The other user @arokh (OpenWrt forum) was gone for ~1yr, and upon returning to the forum (before it crashed), stated he was no longer going to be creating community builds.
    • His section is still in the wiki under 3rd party builds, however I removed the image links and added a warning wrap, as users will find the config files in his builds of interest since he offered a complete OOBE image... One of the most highly customized builds I've ever come across.

  • I believe @hnyman and @stangri may offer custom build repos, but can't recall for sure.

  • @sera (OpenWrt forum) worked on custom kernels for the Series, however I'm not sure if they ever came over to the LEDE forum.

The Third Party Builds section was mainly an effort to consolidate disparate info of trusted users/devs who maintained their own repos, in an effort to ensure users knew which ones the community trusted.

I personally recommend WRT AC Series users compile their own firmware if they want a customized image, as then one can choose the exact packages they want installed and have their own configs built into the compiled image.

  • A simple VM solution like VirtualBox is all one needs to create a Linux VM
    • I personally prefer Ubuntu and created a script a while back to automate the entire buildroot setup and image compile process
2 Likes

arokh is here with a build, but under the guise of a new moniker

2 Likes

Flashed to r6952, switched "option igdv1" to 1 and rebooted. However, it did not have an effect, as I have tested it in game and received NAT Type strict. Using my older setup results in NAT Type open. Also flashed to DD-WRT briefly, and had no NAT problems.

Also, r6952 rebooted the router on it's own. Fresh flash and only changed the upnpd.config. Anything after r6565 causes my WRT1200ACv2 to reboot.

Awesome =] His builds really are some of the most highly customized builds I've ever come across, intended to offer the end user a complete OOBE.

I'll work on getting his info updated in the wiki over the next days then.

Well, I have compiled every now and then a test build for WRT3200ACM for the CPU frequency scaling feature, but I have kept that build rather low-key (although it is quite stable up-to-date build with full source of the changes made):

1 Like

Very cool hnyman. Would be great to see this incorporated into Master or 18.06 for the range of WRT devices up to the WRT3200ACM / WRT32X. Would help optimize heat / power consumption / SoC lifespan.

Would be great to see radio power output scaling someday too, but I know that's unlikely. I've heard it's pegged at 100mW in OpenWrt due to drivers, which is absurd. I run my R7800 RF on low because I have smaller place.

This will never change on any device manufactured for US from mid-2017 forward, due to FCC regulations that limit the transmitting power of the radios.

  • On top of that, I'd be concerned about going over 100mW consistently on any device, as doing so can shorten the lifespan of the PCB and it's components due to the excess heat.
    • The only way I'd feel comfortable doing this would be with a custom fan(s) installed into the router's housing.
1 Like

Yea I don't want to be able to raise power output, I want to be able to lower it. 100mW is way too much for fixed. My R7000 had it at 25mW for years with plenty of signal at my place.

Where did you hear it was set to 100mw by default?

  • The FCC ruling prevents users with routers manufactured after mid 2017 from changing the transmitting power.
    • Unless something has changed, there is no way to bypass this and set the radios to the max 100mW for transmitting, as it's hard coded for a specific value, and while I can't recall what that value is, it's not 100mW.

Where did you hear it was set to 100mw by default?

The FCC ruling prevents users with routers manufactured after mid 2017 from changing the transmitting power.
Unless something has changed, there is no way to bypass this and set the radios to the max 100mW for transmitting, as it’s hard coded for a specific value, and while I can’t recall what that value is, it’s not 100mW.

It's actually 1 watt (1000mw) https://www.air802.com/fcc-rules-and-regulations.html

1 Like

There's no dates listed as to when that was last updated, and 1W was the previous bar prior to the new regulations that took effect in 2017. Most, if not all, routers manufactured for the US after the regulation took effect have non-customizable power transmit values that are hard coded.

  • There's at least one thread on this forum that discusses this (in relation to the WRT AC Series).
    • Devices known to be affected: WRT1900ACS v2, WRT3200ACM v2, likely the WRT32X

It varies by channel:

I recall reading that the manufacturers had to lock it down. The options were to stay propitiatory so than open source software couldn't be used, or store the settings in ROM.

The copyright is listed as 2006-2018. That would be the last time it was edited, which makes it as old as 01/01/2018.

Not that this really matters now, but here is some history as to why the FCC did the lock down. We had, and still do have, community members that purposefully take wifi power levels outside of approved specifications.

As someone who maintains a FCC radio certification, the FCC take this very seriously, and it doesn't surprise me that they took action.

2 Likes

That's the site's copyright, not that page's... You are aware private citizens cannot copyright information put forth by a governmental agency, such as the FCC, right?

You be you, friend. I'm out of this.

The regulatory bodies set the maximum allowable transmit power, they do not mandate that the device has to use that, and only that, transmit power. The device driver should be allowed to use a lower power, but mwlwifi does not allow this. IC (CA), and FCC (US), pretty much dictate the same regulations (something to do with a shared ~8900 km border), and from a rango:

root@bsaedgy:~# iw reg get
global
country CA: DFS-FCC
	(2402 - 2472 @ 40), (N/A, 30), (N/A)
	(5150 - 5250 @ 80), (N/A, 23), (N/A), NO-OUTDOOR, AUTO-BW
	(5250 - 5350 @ 80), (N/A, 24), (0 ms), DFS, AUTO-BW
	(5470 - 5600 @ 80), (N/A, 24), (0 ms), DFS
	(5650 - 5730 @ 80), (N/A, 24), (0 ms), DFS
	(5735 - 5835 @ 80), (N/A, 30), (N/A)

phy#1
country CA: DFS-FCC
	(2402 - 2472 @ 40), (N/A, 30), (N/A)
	(5150 - 5250 @ 80), (N/A, 23), (N/A), NO-OUTDOOR, AUTO-BW
	(5250 - 5350 @ 80), (N/A, 24), (0 ms), DFS, AUTO-BW
	(5470 - 5600 @ 80), (N/A, 24), (0 ms), DFS
	(5650 - 5730 @ 80), (N/A, 24), (0 ms), DFS
	(5735 - 5835 @ 80), (N/A, 30), (N/A)

phy#0
country CA: DFS-FCC
	(2402 - 2472 @ 40), (N/A, 30), (N/A)
	(5150 - 5250 @ 80), (N/A, 23), (N/A), NO-OUTDOOR, AUTO-BW
	(5250 - 5350 @ 80), (N/A, 24), (0 ms), DFS, AUTO-BW
	(5470 - 5600 @ 80), (N/A, 24), (0 ms), DFS
	(5650 - 5730 @ 80), (N/A, 24), (0 ms), DFS
	(5735 - 5835 @ 80), (N/A, 30), (N/A)

what I get from mwlwifi is dictated by the channel I choose. For example choosing 149, yields 30 dBm TX-power(and 30 dBm == xxxx mW , and only that is allowed. There is no reason that the device should be shouting at something 2 floors down, when that device cannot shout back.

This is of course true on all wrtpac devices with the baked in eeprom power tables, rango, and V2 flavours of the other units. This discussion keeps on happening.

2 Likes

Exceeding the FCC regulation was never my intention of bringing this up. Want to be able to reduce the power output because I don't need the full power. Just a like a CPU would scale down as well.

Scaling works fine on the R7000 and R7800. The WRT3200ACM for example, is fixed at a higher limit at the driver level, I would like to reduce it as needed.

Not sure what the actual WRT series is fixed at (doubt it's 1000mW that would be absurd), but I'm running the R7000 right now at 25mW and it works great, low power output for a smaller apartment, etc. WRT routers should be able to do this as well, that is all.

2 Likes

Yes, I understood from your original response to the Frequency Scaling link above that your desire was to lower the TX power from the mwlwifi default.

My post was in response to the misconception that the reason behind mwlwifi fixing the TX power at the maximum was due to a dictate by some regulatory body, and not due to a design decision behind mwlwifi.