Could you clarify a little more about the AR9160? Is it also an unfortunate one as well? It seems we have been unlucky to choose this one...
Thanks, -Daniel 2010/5/11 Luis R. Rodriguez <[email protected]>: > On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 04:59:02PM -0700, Björn Smedman wrote: >> On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 6:35 PM, Peter Stuge <[email protected]> wrote: >> > I don't consider ath9k on AR5008 to be at production level for STA >> > with wireless-testing as of a week ago, but AP performance may be >> > different. >> >> I've been running ath9k in a production network (AP mode) for the last >> year or so, but unfortunately have to concur: ath9k is not production >> ready. > > I think it is a good time to highlight once again that Atheros has supported > anything >= AR9280 with actual staff and good commitment. Our resources are > limited though so we can only focus on a set of chipsets. The AR5008 and > AR9001 > family are those unfortunate families which did not get as much attention and > love. > > So if you want production material support you should use >= AR9280 or > be willing to grind in as the older families *are* supported but with > limited attention and resources, more with the help of the community. > > I hope this helps making choices on chipsets. > > Luis > > _______________________________________________ > ath9k-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel > _______________________________________________ ath9k-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
