Francesco Gringoli wrote: > we just finished a couple of stressing tests and everything went fine, > kernel did not complain about anything, below is attached the tests > description. Just a few questions > > - have you applied any recent patch to the kernel (we too are using > 2.6.29-rc2-wl), so that your kernel can behave differently than ours? > - are you sure you are using the correct initvals files? Those we put > today on the website? > - have you replaced _all_ the files, including shm.inc etc? Here we > redefined the txheader layout and moved the cookie address > - are you modprobing by setting qos=0? > - is your card a PCCARD or PCI?
The only patch I had applied to 2.6.29-rc2-wl was to have b43 look for opensource firmware before the proprietary version. The complete set of files from the openfwwf-5.1.tar.gz were applied and the firmware built from them. I am modprobing with qos=0 and nohwcrypto=1. I have a PCCARD format. It is labeled as a Linksys WPC54G, ver. 3. > The strange thing is that the way b43 is interfaced to the firmware, > when hw encryption is not activated, does not change switching from 351 > to 410 version apart for the txheader layout: however we modified that > layout according to definitions in xmit.h. Is this correct? If this hold > I really can not understand why r5.1 had problems and r5.0 not in your > setup. I would have supposed that given r5.1 has problems, the same can > arise also on r5.0. > > Thanks, > -FG > > Tests description: we did the following couple of tests > > - downloaded 1GB through TCP while sending 1.6GB of UDP like traffic > through a raw socket, 10 ping/s > > - sent 10GBYTE by injecting packets composed in userspace through a > ioctl we attached to mac80211 stack: packets are sent one after another > without ACKs, separated by just a SIFS and encoded at 54Mb/s (this is a > very small firmware hack that reprograms next transmission opportunity > when you want, in this case just after the SIFS and only for frames sent > to one not existing MAC addresses, so that no ack is sent by no one). > Actual packets transmission verified by sniffing the channel by using > another Broadcom card Your tests are a lot more rigorous than mine. I'll repeat my tests. Larry _______________________________________________ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
