Re: LP-PHY status?
Rafał Miłecki wrote: Stefanik is there change you find some time to finish calibration part before .32 merge window? Don't want to rush you, you already have done great work, just would like to know. Developers can (and they should) react very badly to questions like this. Many times I do, I have no idea about Stefanik. Asking for progress like this is, in fact, precisely trying to rush development. You would like this work to be finished already, and if you have to wait, ok, but you want it as soon as possible, because you want to use it. At the very least you want to know when it will be finished. Remember that there is NO WARRANTY, no guarantees for delivery dates, no nothing. The code is not even guaranteed to work! If it does work, it's really a success. I think you know this. In the open source world, when someone needs something, they help create it, and it is done when it is done. Not everyone can help with programming, but there are other tasks as well. And donations always help of course! I think you know this too. Just a friendly reminder. Kind regards //Peter ___ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
Re: LP-PHY status?
Am Donnerstag, den 17.09.2009, 18:02 +0200 schrieb Rafał Miłecki: Hi, I would like to ask about status of LP-PHY status. Could you explain to simple end-user what is missing in current implementation? Is this just calibration for performance, or something more? Did someone make some tests for AP mode? Or is this /stupid/ idea without calibration done? The LP PHY code works for me since compat-wireless-02-09-09. I can't use newer versions because of some IRQ_THREAD stuff. Maybe my device crashes here then, but hat could be due to other stuff as well (It's an embedded system, ASUS WL-520gU) I have written a (very small) patch that implements proper analog switch support for the LP PHY, and that seems to improve throughput on my device. Stefanik is there change you find some time to finish calibration part before .32 merge window? Don't want to rush you, you already have done great work, just would like to know. I don't know how difficult this calibration stuff is. If it's as simple as the analog switch patch (or the other two useless patches I wrote), You (Stefanik) can drop me a note that I should do it. If you think my patches are crap, and I'm only wasting your time, just inform me. ___ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
Re: LP-PHY status?
2009/9/17 Thomas Ilnseher il...@gmx.de: Am Donnerstag, den 17.09.2009, 18:02 +0200 schrieb Rafał Miłecki: Hi, I would like to ask about status of LP-PHY status. Could you explain to simple end-user what is missing in current implementation? Is this just calibration for performance, or something more? Did someone make some tests for AP mode? Or is this /stupid/ idea without calibration done? The LP PHY code works for me since compat-wireless-02-09-09. I can't use newer versions because of some IRQ_THREAD stuff. Maybe my device crashes here then, but hat could be due to other stuff as well (It's an embedded system, ASUS WL-520gU) I have written a (very small) patch that implements proper analog switch support for the LP PHY, and that seems to improve throughput on my device. Stefanik is there change you find some time to finish calibration part before .32 merge window? Don't want to rush you, you already have done great work, just would like to know. I don't know how difficult this calibration stuff is. If it's as simple as the analog switch patch (or the other two useless patches I wrote), You (Stefanik) can drop me a note that I should do it. If you think my patches are crap, and I'm only wasting your time, just inform me. Calibration is quite hard to do; but I have already posted an incomplete patch about it on the list, which was rejected due to a huge error, and my VMware installation died next day before I could fix the patch up. Fixing the remaining issues on that should be easy - you need to implement PHY reset (and use it instead of put_phy_into_reset, which should actually be called disable_phy) and replace the inline implementation of PHY anacore with a proper call to the switch_analog op. (When I wrote the code, I didn't realize that PHY anacore actually means switch analog core.) Note that my patch doesn't contain all 3 calibration routines, only one of them. BTW your useless patches will probably become useful when writing calibration. ___ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev -- Vista: [V]iruses, [I]ntruders, [S]pyware, [T]rojans and [A]dware. :-) ___ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
