On Fri, 2008-04-18 at 18:24 +0200, Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Friday 18 April 2008 18:17:23 Stefanik Gábor wrote:
> > According to the README of the Vista driver, the card supports Afterburner,
>
> To be honest, I don't care for afterburner. It's a horrible
> proprietary extension and it's (IMO) n
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 8:30 PM, Larry Finger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> What is happening on the bcm43xx mailing list? I keep getting the mail
> way out of order. It certainly makes following a thread difficult.
>
Sorry for that, it's most likely because I often forgot to CC the list when
I an
Michael Buesch wrote:
On Friday 18 April 2008 17:51:29 Stefanik Gábor wrote:
Bisection complete!
After testing numerous settings for BoardFlags, I found that the only ones
to have a benefical effect on the card is 0x4049/0x4249 and 0x0048/0x0248,
which differs from the original 0x0049 only in th
On Friday 18 April 2008 18:17:23 Stefanik Gábor wrote:
> According to the README of the Vista driver, the card supports Afterburner,
To be honest, I don't care for afterburner. It's a horrible
proprietary extension and it's (IMO) not really what people should
be using.
So I'm OK with leaving that
Oops... once again, I forgot to CC the list.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Stefanik Gábor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 6:19 PM
Subject: Re: ASUS WL-138G v2 working with different sprom values
To: Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Also, to avoid p
According to the README of the Vista driver, the card supports Afterburner,
but not SpeedBooster. SpeedBooster is only supported by WL-138gE. However,
the page on asus.com about the card no longer talks about Afterburner
support (it did, previously). So, the right overrides are 0x0048 for
14E4:4318
On Friday 18 April 2008 17:51:29 Stefanik Gábor wrote:
> Bisection complete!
> After testing numerous settings for BoardFlags, I found that the only ones
> to have a benefical effect on the card is 0x4049/0x4249 and 0x0048/0x0248,
> which differs from the original 0x0049 only in the BFL_BTCMOD bit,
Bisection complete!
After testing numerous settings for BoardFlags, I found that the only ones
to have a benefical effect on the card is 0x4049/0x4249 and 0x0048/0x0248,
which differs from the original 0x0049 only in the BFL_BTCMOD bit, which is
0 by default, but 1 in this configuration. Not only t
On Friday 18 April 2008 17:31:41 Johannes Berg wrote:
>
> > It is the BFL_BTCMOD this bit selects which GPIO pin the microcode
> > uses for disabling the bluetooth chip.
> > I think the GPIO pin is actually connected to the power amplifier
> > on this device. So you see what this results in. :)
>
> It is the BFL_BTCMOD this bit selects which GPIO pin the microcode
> uses for disabling the bluetooth chip.
> I think the GPIO pin is actually connected to the power amplifier
> on this device. So you see what this results in. :)
> So the SPROM is buggy and we are missing some workaround for it
On Friday 18 April 2008 16:44:58 Stefanik Gábor wrote:
> That's *exactly* what I am doing at this moment. Here are my findings so
> far:
>
> WL-138G V2 comes with BoardFlags=0x0049. That would mean, no Afterburner
> (among other things), even though Asus specifically advertises this card as
> supp
For the record, here is the ping output:
"PING 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=254 time=308 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=254 time=4.89 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=254 time=315 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: ic
That's *exactly* what I am doing at this moment. Here are my findings so
far:
WL-138G V2 comes with BoardFlags=0x0049. That would mean, no Afterburner
(among other things), even though Asus specifically advertises this card as
supporting Afterburner. When I set it
to0x6A49, the card suddenly comes
On Friday 18 April 2008 16:27:18 Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-04-18 at 15:57 +0200, Michael Buesch wrote:
>
> > > Following up on this idea of substituting sprom images;
> > >
> > > > Oops, sorry, here is the attached SPROM file.>
>
> > > Using that sprom dump which
On Fri, 2008-04-18 at 15:57 +0200, Michael Buesch wrote:
> > Following up on this idea of substituting sprom images;
> >
> > > Oops, sorry, here is the attached SPROM file.>
> > Using that sprom dump which Stefanik provided, the card in question here
> > appears to be now
On Friday 18 April 2008 04:10:37 kala mazoo wrote:
>
> Greets,
>
> Following up on this idea of substituting sprom images;
>
> > Oops, sorry, here is the attached SPROM file.>
> >
> >On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 11:39 PM, Stefanik Gábor
> >wrote:
> >
> > Looks like this is an A
As usual, forgot to CC the list...
-- Forwarded message --
From: Stefanik Gábor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Apr 18, 2008 1:19 PM
Subject: Re: ASUS WL-138G v2 working with different sprom values
To: kala mazoo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I seem to have a clue about what's
Greets,
Following up on this idea of substituting sprom images;
> Oops, sorry, here is the attached SPROM file.>
>
>On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 11:39 PM, Stefanik Gábor
>wrote:
>
> Looks like this is an Asus-specific issue. Can you try flashing the
> attached SPROM file (with
18 matches
Mail list logo
