Re: firmware versions?
David Ellingsworth wrote: > > > Ok good to know, but what exactly is the legacy version of the driver? Is it > simply the > old softmac version (aka bcm43xx atm.) or is it the port of that driver to > mac80211 (via > the patch that was on here a few days ago)? The current bcm43xx-mac80211 > driver will be > the one renamed to bcm43 correct? The legacy driver will be similar to the patch that has been circulating and will use the PHY and radio code from the softmac driver with a mac80211 front end. The only devices supported with this driver will be those that are not covered by the latest Broadcom drivers. The bcm43xx-mac80211 will be renamed bcm43. Larry ___ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
RE: firmware versions?
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > CC: bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de > Subject: Re: firmware versions? > > David Ellingsworth wrote: > > > > bcm43xx-phy0: Broadcom 4306 WLAN found > > bcm43xx-phy0 debug: Found PHY: Analog 1, Type 2, Revision 1 > > bcm43xx-phy0 debug: Found Radio: Manuf 0x17F, Version 0x2050, Revision 2 > > bcm43xx-phy0 debug: Radio turned off > > bcm43xx-phy0 debug: Adding Interface type 2 > > bcm43xx-phy0 debug: Loading firmware version 351.126 (2006-07-29 05:54:02) > > bcm43xx-phy0 debug: Radio turned on > > bcm43xx-phy0 debug: Radio enabled by hardware > > ... > > > > So it looks like I have a revision 1 PHY. > > Yes, which is why it isn't working too well. My recollection is that the old > PHY (V3 firmware) code > works better than the V4 code does. Your card will be one of those that will > use bcm43legacy, and > will not be covered by bcm43. Watch this list for an announcement. The new > drivers will be in the > wireless-dev tree. > > Larry Ok good to know, but what exactly is the legacy version of the driver? Is it simply the old softmac version (aka bcm43xx atm.) or is it the port of that driver to mac80211 (via the patch that was on here a few days ago)? The current bcm43xx-mac80211 driver will be the one renamed to bcm43 correct? - David _ Find a local pizza place, movie theater, and more….then map the best route! http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&ss=yp.bars~yp.pizza~yp.movie%20theater&cp=42.358996~-71.056691&style=r&lvl=13&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=950607&encType=1&FORM=MGAC01 ___ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
Re: firmware versions?
David Ellingsworth wrote: > > bcm43xx-phy0: Broadcom 4306 WLAN found > bcm43xx-phy0 debug: Found PHY: Analog 1, Type 2, Revision 1 > bcm43xx-phy0 debug: Found Radio: Manuf 0x17F, Version 0x2050, Revision 2 > bcm43xx-phy0 debug: Radio turned off > bcm43xx-phy0 debug: Adding Interface type 2 > bcm43xx-phy0 debug: Loading firmware version 351.126 (2006-07-29 05:54:02) > bcm43xx-phy0 debug: Radio turned on > bcm43xx-phy0 debug: Radio enabled by hardware > ... > > So it looks like I have a revision 1 PHY. Yes, which is why it isn't working too well. My recollection is that the old PHY (V3 firmware) code works better than the V4 code does. Your card will be one of those that will use bcm43legacy, and will not be covered by bcm43. Watch this list for an announcement. The new drivers will be in the wireless-dev tree. Larry ___ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
RE: firmware versions?
> Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 15:01:34 -0500 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de > Subject: Re: firmware versions? > > David Ellingsworth wrote: > >> Subject: firmware versions? > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> To: bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de > >> Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 15:42:52 +0200 > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> We were just discussing the negative effects of having too many > >> different firmwares (like the problem Andy ran into); if you're using > >> the version 4 driver and have a different firmware than > >> * 343.126 (this is the currently recommended one) > >> * 351.1092 (I'm using that) > >> > >> could you reply with the version you're using? The driver prints > >> something like: > >> > >> bcm43xx-phy0 debug: Loading firmware version 351.1092 (2006-05-13 03:13:11) > >> > >> when it loads. > >> > >> johannes > > > > Johannes - > > > > I'm currently using firmware version 351.126 (2006-07-29 05:54:02) which I > > obtained quite some time ago from www.linuxwireless.org. > > > > I assume the difference in revisions probably explains the lack of > > performance that I am experiencing compared to others with a similar 4306 > > based card. At the moment I am able to associate with the AP but am unable > > to maintain a connection or consistently do dhcp. I will try one of the > > firmware revisions you have posted and see if I obtain better results. > > Unfortunately I don't have my own AP, and therefore its also hard for me to > > determine if the issues I see are range related as well. > > > > Regards, > > > > It may not be firmware. Which BCM4306 do you have? My 4306/2 with a PHY rev > of 1 doesn't work as > well as the others, but that is the one that will be using bcm43legacy with > V3 firmware. > > Larry > > > Larry Here's a partial dump of from dmesg: bcm43xx-phy0: Broadcom 4306 WLAN found bcm43xx-phy0 debug: Found PHY: Analog 1, Type 2, Revision 1 bcm43xx-phy0 debug: Found Radio: Manuf 0x17F, Version 0x2050, Revision 2 bcm43xx-phy0 debug: Radio turned off bcm43xx-phy0 debug: Adding Interface type 2 bcm43xx-phy0 debug: Loading firmware version 351.126 (2006-07-29 05:54:02) bcm43xx-phy0 debug: Radio turned on bcm43xx-phy0 debug: Radio enabled by hardware ... So it looks like I have a revision 1 PHY. - David _ Learn. Laugh. Share. Reallivemoms is right place! http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us ___ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
Re: firmware versions?
David Ellingsworth wrote: >> Subject: firmware versions? >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> To: bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de >> Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 15:42:52 +0200 >> >> Hi, >> >> We were just discussing the negative effects of having too many >> different firmwares (like the problem Andy ran into); if you're using >> the version 4 driver and have a different firmware than >> * 343.126 (this is the currently recommended one) >> * 351.1092 (I'm using that) >> >> could you reply with the version you're using? The driver prints >> something like: >> >> bcm43xx-phy0 debug: Loading firmware version 351.1092 (2006-05-13 03:13:11) >> >> when it loads. >> >> johannes > > Johannes - > > I'm currently using firmware version 351.126 (2006-07-29 05:54:02) which I > obtained quite some time ago from www.linuxwireless.org. > > I assume the difference in revisions probably explains the lack of > performance that I am experiencing compared to others with a similar 4306 > based card. At the moment I am able to associate with the AP but am unable to > maintain a connection or consistently do dhcp. I will try one of the firmware > revisions you have posted and see if I obtain better results. Unfortunately I > don't have my own AP, and therefore its also hard for me to determine if the > issues I see are range related as well. > > Regards, > It may not be firmware. Which BCM4306 do you have? My 4306/2 with a PHY rev of 1 doesn't work as well as the others, but that is the one that will be using bcm43legacy with V3 firmware. Larry Larry ___ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
Re: bcm4301 -> bcm43xx-legacy
On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 08:33:52PM +0200, Martin Langer wrote: > I wouldn't call it b43. Please add some letters here. > > BCM is still developing their bcm43xx platform. So it's possible that we > will find another point in the future where we have to split b43 again. > b43 is more a common name in my eyes and b43something would be better. Premature optimization -- if something new shows-up, let it have the longer name... John -- John W. Linville [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
RE: firmware versions?
> Subject: firmware versions? > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de > Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 15:42:52 +0200 > > Hi, > > We were just discussing the negative effects of having too many > different firmwares (like the problem Andy ran into); if you're using > the version 4 driver and have a different firmware than > * 343.126 (this is the currently recommended one) > * 351.1092 (I'm using that) > > could you reply with the version you're using? The driver prints > something like: > > bcm43xx-phy0 debug: Loading firmware version 351.1092 (2006-05-13 03:13:11) > > when it loads. > > johannes Johannes - I'm currently using firmware version 351.126 (2006-07-29 05:54:02) which I obtained quite some time ago from www.linuxwireless.org. I assume the difference in revisions probably explains the lack of performance that I am experiencing compared to others with a similar 4306 based card. At the moment I am able to associate with the AP but am unable to maintain a connection or consistently do dhcp. I will try one of the firmware revisions you have posted and see if I obtain better results. Unfortunately I don't have my own AP, and therefore its also hard for me to determine if the issues I see are range related as well. Regards, David Ellingsworth _ Find a local pizza place, movie theater, and more….then map the best route! http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&ss=yp.bars~yp.pizza~yp.movie%20theater&cp=42.358996~-71.056691&style=r&lvl=13&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=950607&encType=1&FORM=MGAC01 ___ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
Re: bcm4301 -> bcm43xx-legacy
On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 04:35:53PM +0200, Michael Buesch wrote: > On Thursday 09 August 2007 16:09:53 Larry Finger wrote: > > Michael Buesch wrote: > > > It turns out that it's better to extend the device > > > support in bcm4301 due to more difficulties in reverse > > > engineering the newer bcm drivers. > > > Newer drivers don't contain support for wireless core ref < 5 > > > anymore. So I suggest we support <5 devices with the legacy > > > driver using v3 firmware. And anything above with v4 firmware > > > with upstream bcm43xx-mac80211. > > > That's actually a nice cutoff point, as rev 5 is when they > > > started using the new microcode format. > > > > > > So, that said, I want to rename all the drivers. > > > My plan was to rename "bcm43xx-mac80211" to "b43", so > > > you could probably rename bcm4301 to b43-legacy or something > > > shorter like b43-leg or maybe even b43-old. > > > > > > Any comments? > > > > > > > I like the idea of b43 and b43-legacy. As a "senior citizen", I'm beginning > > to dislike the adjective > > Feel free to drop the -. > I think b43legacy is even better (to type, to read, it's shorter..) I wouldn't call it b43. Please add some letters here. BCM is still developing their bcm43xx platform. So it's possible that we will find another point in the future where we have to split b43 again. b43 is more a common name in my eyes and b43something would be better. I think b43legacy, b43something, b43nextgeneration,... as parts of the b43 family sounds much clearer to me. There should be a difference between the driver and the family. But unfortunately I don't have a good idea for the right name. Just my $0.02 Martin ___ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
Re: bcm4301 -> bcm43xx-legacy
On Thursday 09 August 2007, Larry Finger wrote: > Johannes Berg wrote: > > On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 16:52 +0200, Michael Buesch wrote: > > > >> There will be a problem with the PCI IDs, though. > >> We can't see from the PCI ID if that's a v4 or v5 device. So > >> we have to make _one_ common ssb-pci wrapper and let us probe > >> from ssb, so that either b43 or b43legacy is loaded. > >> I'll take a look to figure out how that works. Shouldn't be > >> too hard. The probing is done through the ssb device table > >> in the driver, where you can put the supported core revs. > > > > For the benefit of those not on IRC, these two patches should be all > > that's needed (untested!) > > > > http://johannes.sipsolutions.net/patches/kernel/ssb-modalias.patch > > http://johannes.sipsolutions.net/patches/kernel/ssb-uevent.patch > > > > The idea will be to strip out the PCI info from both b43 and b43legacy > > and then have those two as ssb-core drivers, put the pci IDs into a > > bridge module that only registers the pci/ssb bridge and then the other > > modules are auto-loaded based on the ssb info. > > Sounds good. I do believe we have a plan. Michael will convert > bcm43xx-mac80211 into bcm43, and I'll > change bcm4301 into bcm43legacy. We will have some patch conflicts over > drivers/net/wireless/Kconfig > and Makefile, so I'll wait for his submissions to propagate through before I > push mine. That will > also give me a chance to see how to use the ssb bridge modules. Yeah, cool. I'll send the patch later. ___ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
Re: bcm4301 -> bcm43xx-legacy
Johannes Berg wrote: > On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 16:52 +0200, Michael Buesch wrote: > >> There will be a problem with the PCI IDs, though. >> We can't see from the PCI ID if that's a v4 or v5 device. So >> we have to make _one_ common ssb-pci wrapper and let us probe >> from ssb, so that either b43 or b43legacy is loaded. >> I'll take a look to figure out how that works. Shouldn't be >> too hard. The probing is done through the ssb device table >> in the driver, where you can put the supported core revs. > > For the benefit of those not on IRC, these two patches should be all > that's needed (untested!) > > http://johannes.sipsolutions.net/patches/kernel/ssb-modalias.patch > http://johannes.sipsolutions.net/patches/kernel/ssb-uevent.patch > > The idea will be to strip out the PCI info from both b43 and b43legacy > and then have those two as ssb-core drivers, put the pci IDs into a > bridge module that only registers the pci/ssb bridge and then the other > modules are auto-loaded based on the ssb info. Sounds good. I do believe we have a plan. Michael will convert bcm43xx-mac80211 into bcm43, and I'll change bcm4301 into bcm43legacy. We will have some patch conflicts over drivers/net/wireless/Kconfig and Makefile, so I'll wait for his submissions to propagate through before I push mine. That will also give me a chance to see how to use the ssb bridge modules. Larry ___ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
Re: bcm4301 -> bcm43xx-legacy
On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 05:45:53PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > For the benefit of those not on IRC, these two patches should be all > that's needed (untested!) > > http://johannes.sipsolutions.net/patches/kernel/ssb-modalias.patch > http://johannes.sipsolutions.net/patches/kernel/ssb-uevent.patch > > The idea will be to strip out the PCI info from both b43 and b43legacy > and then have those two as ssb-core drivers, put the pci IDs into a > bridge module that only registers the pci/ssb bridge and then the other > modules are auto-loaded based on the ssb info. Excellent. This definitely sounds like the right path to keeping the drivers straight (or "properly sorted" as the limeys might say). :-) John -- John W. Linville [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
Re: bcm4301 -> bcm43xx-legacy
On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 16:52 +0200, Michael Buesch wrote: > There will be a problem with the PCI IDs, though. > We can't see from the PCI ID if that's a v4 or v5 device. So > we have to make _one_ common ssb-pci wrapper and let us probe > from ssb, so that either b43 or b43legacy is loaded. > I'll take a look to figure out how that works. Shouldn't be > too hard. The probing is done through the ssb device table > in the driver, where you can put the supported core revs. For the benefit of those not on IRC, these two patches should be all that's needed (untested!) http://johannes.sipsolutions.net/patches/kernel/ssb-modalias.patch http://johannes.sipsolutions.net/patches/kernel/ssb-uevent.patch The idea will be to strip out the PCI info from both b43 and b43legacy and then have those two as ssb-core drivers, put the pci IDs into a bridge module that only registers the pci/ssb bridge and then the other modules are auto-loaded based on the ssb info. johannes signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
Re: bcm4301 -> bcm43xx-legacy
On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 09:46 -0500, Larry Finger wrote: > If anyone > reading this has one, please report it through > http://bcm-specs.sipsolutions.net/. That interface doesn't actually work any more because the driver output changed. I have a few submissions but haven't gotten around to putting them into the database. I don't think there were any 4303s though. johannes signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
Re: bcm4301 -> bcm43xx-legacy
On Thursday 09 August 2007 16:46:40 Larry Finger wrote: > Michael Buesch wrote: > > > Newer drivers don't contain support for wireless core ref < 5 > > anymore. So I suggest we support <5 devices with the legacy > > driver using v3 firmware. And anything above with v4 firmware > > with upstream bcm43xx-mac80211. > > That's actually a nice cutoff point, as rev 5 is when they > > started using the new microcode format. > > A cutoff for wireless core rev < 5 means that bcm43-legacy will support > BCM4301, BCM4303 and > BCM4306/2. I have a BCM4301 and two BCM4306/2 cards, thus I'm in a good > position to support that > driver branch. There are no 4303's in the database - I'm not sure they exist > in the wild. If anyone > reading this has one, please report it through > http://bcm-specs.sipsolutions.net/. There will be a problem with the PCI IDs, though. We can't see from the PCI ID if that's a v4 or v5 device. So we have to make _one_ common ssb-pci wrapper and let us probe from ssb, so that either b43 or b43legacy is loaded. I'll take a look to figure out how that works. Shouldn't be too hard. The probing is done through the ssb device table in the driver, where you can put the supported core revs. -- Greetings Michael. ___ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
Re: bcm4301 -> bcm43xx-legacy
Michael Buesch wrote: > Newer drivers don't contain support for wireless core ref < 5 > anymore. So I suggest we support <5 devices with the legacy > driver using v3 firmware. And anything above with v4 firmware > with upstream bcm43xx-mac80211. > That's actually a nice cutoff point, as rev 5 is when they > started using the new microcode format. A cutoff for wireless core rev < 5 means that bcm43-legacy will support BCM4301, BCM4303 and BCM4306/2. I have a BCM4301 and two BCM4306/2 cards, thus I'm in a good position to support that driver branch. There are no 4303's in the database - I'm not sure they exist in the wild. If anyone reading this has one, please report it through http://bcm-specs.sipsolutions.net/. Larry ___ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
Re: bcm4301 -> bcm43xx-legacy
On Thursday 09 August 2007 16:09:53 Larry Finger wrote: > Michael Buesch wrote: > > It turns out that it's better to extend the device > > support in bcm4301 due to more difficulties in reverse > > engineering the newer bcm drivers. > > Newer drivers don't contain support for wireless core ref < 5 > > anymore. So I suggest we support <5 devices with the legacy > > driver using v3 firmware. And anything above with v4 firmware > > with upstream bcm43xx-mac80211. > > That's actually a nice cutoff point, as rev 5 is when they > > started using the new microcode format. > > > > So, that said, I want to rename all the drivers. > > My plan was to rename "bcm43xx-mac80211" to "b43", so > > you could probably rename bcm4301 to b43-legacy or something > > shorter like b43-leg or maybe even b43-old. > > > > Any comments? > > > > I like the idea of b43 and b43-legacy. As a "senior citizen", I'm beginning > to dislike the adjective Feel free to drop the -. I think b43legacy is even better (to type, to read, it's shorter..) -- Greetings Michael. ___ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
Re: bcm4301 -> bcm43xx-legacy
On Thursday 09 August 2007 16:21:09 Pavel Roskin wrote: > On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 16:07 +0200, Michael Buesch wrote: > > On Thursday 09 August 2007 16:00:47 Pavel Roskin wrote: > > > On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 15:41 +0200, Michael Buesch wrote: > > > > > > > So, that said, I want to rename all the drivers. > > > > My plan was to rename "bcm43xx-mac80211" to "b43", so > > > > you could probably rename bcm4301 to b43-legacy or something > > > > shorter like b43-leg or maybe even b43-old. > > > > > > I think if bcm43xx will be replaced with its mac80211 port, it should > > > stay bcm43xx to preserve users' .config and fwpostfix settings. > > > > No it should not. bcm43xx-mac80211 requires different firmware. > > I think you misread me. "its mac80211 port" refers to bcm4301. I just > tried to avoid the bcm4301 name because it wasn't exposed in Linux > releases yet. > > Anyway, it's up to Larry, and he doesn't seem to dislike "legacy". > Better rename it now to make clear what the driver _really_ is about, than having a bugreport each day that bcm43xx doesn't support device X anymore. There _will_ be a regression. That's the whole point of all this. And we want to make it as clear as possible how to progress (which driver to take in future). -- Greetings Michael. ___ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
Re: bcm4301 -> bcm43xx-legacy
On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 16:07 +0200, Michael Buesch wrote: > On Thursday 09 August 2007 16:00:47 Pavel Roskin wrote: > > On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 15:41 +0200, Michael Buesch wrote: > > > > > So, that said, I want to rename all the drivers. > > > My plan was to rename "bcm43xx-mac80211" to "b43", so > > > you could probably rename bcm4301 to b43-legacy or something > > > shorter like b43-leg or maybe even b43-old. > > > > I think if bcm43xx will be replaced with its mac80211 port, it should > > stay bcm43xx to preserve users' .config and fwpostfix settings. > > No it should not. bcm43xx-mac80211 requires different firmware. I think you misread me. "its mac80211 port" refers to bcm4301. I just tried to avoid the bcm4301 name because it wasn't exposed in Linux releases yet. Anyway, it's up to Larry, and he doesn't seem to dislike "legacy". -- Regards, Pavel Roskin ___ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
Re: bcm4301 -> bcm43xx-legacy
On Thursday 09 August 2007 16:09:53 Larry Finger wrote: > I like the idea of b43 and b43-legacy. As a "senior citizen", I'm beginning > to dislike the adjective > "old", haha :P > What time frame do you envision this change taking place? I was planning to do it with my next patch. Though, I see huge indention problems coming.. :) -- Greetings Michael. ___ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
Re: bcm4301 -> bcm43xx-legacy
Michael Buesch wrote: > It turns out that it's better to extend the device > support in bcm4301 due to more difficulties in reverse > engineering the newer bcm drivers. > Newer drivers don't contain support for wireless core ref < 5 > anymore. So I suggest we support <5 devices with the legacy > driver using v3 firmware. And anything above with v4 firmware > with upstream bcm43xx-mac80211. > That's actually a nice cutoff point, as rev 5 is when they > started using the new microcode format. > > So, that said, I want to rename all the drivers. > My plan was to rename "bcm43xx-mac80211" to "b43", so > you could probably rename bcm4301 to b43-legacy or something > shorter like b43-leg or maybe even b43-old. > > Any comments? > I like the idea of b43 and b43-legacy. As a "senior citizen", I'm beginning to dislike the adjective "old", and "leg" isn't that descriptive. What time frame do you envision this change taking place? Larry ___ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
Re: bcm4301 -> bcm43xx-legacy
On Thursday 09 August 2007 16:00:47 Pavel Roskin wrote: > On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 15:41 +0200, Michael Buesch wrote: > > > So, that said, I want to rename all the drivers. > > My plan was to rename "bcm43xx-mac80211" to "b43", so > > you could probably rename bcm4301 to b43-legacy or something > > shorter like b43-leg or maybe even b43-old. > > I think if bcm43xx will be replaced with its mac80211 port, it should > stay bcm43xx to preserve users' .config and fwpostfix settings. No it should not. bcm43xx-mac80211 requires different firmware. We discussed that in huge discussions in the past. If we have the same name, it will silently fail. If we rename it, it will obviously fail. -- Greetings Michael. ___ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
Re: Port of bcm43xx from softmac to mac80211 is available for testing
On Wednesday 08 August 2007 22:49:17 you wrote: > Richard Jonsson wrote: > > On Monday 06 August 2007 03:21:11 you wrote: > >> Richard Jonsson wrote: > >>> Isn't Desired TX power supposed to adapt so that higher bitrates are > >>> possible, with Bit Rate going lower if that is not enough to keep a > >>> good connection? > >> > >> Richard, > >> > >> Please grab a new copy of the port_to_mac80211 patch, and try the patch > >> below. It boosts the desired power by up to 5 dBm as signal - noise > >> decreases from 20 to 0. > >> > >> Larry > > > > Hard to say if there is a difference. I've noticed that signal quality > > changes between reboots. When I first tried this patch I couldn't get > > above 36M even at the AP, so I loaded the version without the patch. Same > > thing. So I rebooted and then all rates worked, even 11M. Even for the > > driver version that didn't work a few days ago. > > That is scary! That may mean that something is not being reset. The real > question is whether warm reboots are intrinsically different than cold > (power-off) reboots. I've power cycled between reboots, unsure if I would get the same results on a soft reset. > > > New/updated observations: > > Rate scaling seems to work, but if it gets down to 1M it will not rise > > again unless I force it to a higher bitrate and run iperf for a few > > seconds before setting it to auto. This is even when signal is -5dBm and > > noise is -80dBm. I get a feeling it's a bit to sensitive as it will drop > > quickly at a few meters away. At this distance forced 54M still works > > well. > > Maybe this is due to small dips (0.5sec) in traffic flow?! > > I'm surprised that you get signal values as high as -5 dBm. My maximum is > about -35. I'm usually in the -40 range, even at 2 m from the AP. > That -5dBm signal is best case when AP's antenna is a few cm from the computers lid. In this position it often reads between -15 - -20dBm. If I move just a cm further away it drops to -30dBm which gradually decreases with distance. > > With the patch applied power is reported as 27dB in debugfs. With > > debug_xmitpower dmesg reports desired power to be 16.5 and actual 16.25. > > This is max when I manually set power through debugfs. After a while it's > > down to 10dB, even though only 1M works where I sit. > > > > Range seems to be higher for B-rates. Maybe this is just how things are, > > I lack experience. > > The CCCK (B) encoding is much different than OFDM (G) transmissions. I > would not be surprised to learn that its range were longer. > > The power setting that comes from mac80211 is 27 dBm, which is completely > bogus for what is supposed to be the FCC table. The regulatory limit is 20 > dBm EIRP (a fancy acronym that means take the antenna into account). I've > sent a fix for comment, but as is the usual case for mac80211, it will take > several days or weeks to get a response. The maximum power that a bcm43xx > device can use is encoded in the sprom. For most of them that quantity is > 18.5 dBm, corresponding to the regulatory limit of 20 minus a safety factor > of 1.5. I think that is there to prevent setting the power too high and > flunking the certification tests. The output that goes to the radio is thus > 18.5 less the gain of the antenna, which is also in the sprom with a usual > value of 2 dBm. That is why you see the code setting a Desired power of > 16.5 dBm. I see! I expected it to go to 18dBm. > > Initially, I thought that the performance of my BCM4311 fell off as the > power increased; however, that no longer happens. As a result, we can push > full power at all times and there seems to be no need to use the kind of > algorithm that you were testing. Don't tell the FCC, but we could relax IMHO there should eventually be some power scaling, as I understand wlan takes a fair amount of power. Ideally there should be different modes (powersave, performance) preferrably as an API common to all networking, at least wireless. Getting offtopic, just a thought. > that upper power limit as we will never try to get the device certified, > but then we would use extra power, and run the risk of burning out the > radio. If you decide to do that, please tell me the power setting at which > it fried! Heh, I might have tried if it was a usb stick ;) Since it's usable and since I got 54M/36M rate under no/high load in winxp under the same circumstances I believe power output is sufficient. > > With the patches that were pushed into wireless-dev a few minutes ago, I > suggest that you try bcm43xx-mac80211. It is getting at least as good, if > not better, performance than the BCM4301 or the softmac port to mac80211 > drivers do. We would also appreciate as much testing as possible as it will > help getting it merged into mainstream. That driver will require V4 > firmware. > > Thanks for your report, > > Larry Sure, I'll do that. Where do I get a current source? By git? (I forgot to add the mailinglist in the original mail, sorry
Re: firmware versions?
Johannes Berg wrote: > Hi, > > We were just discussing the negative effects of having too many > different firmwares (like the problem Andy ran into); if you're using > the version 4 driver and have a different firmware than > * 343.126 (this is the currently recommended one) > * 351.1092 (I'm using that) > > could you reply with the version you're using? The driver prints > something like: > > bcm43xx-phy0 debug: Loading firmware version 351.1092 (2006-05-13 03:13:11) > > when it loads. I'm using firmware version 351.126 (2006-07-29 05:54:02). Larry ___ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
Re: bcm4301 -> bcm43xx-legacy
On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 15:41 +0200, Michael Buesch wrote: > So, that said, I want to rename all the drivers. > My plan was to rename "bcm43xx-mac80211" to "b43", so > you could probably rename bcm4301 to b43-legacy or something > shorter like b43-leg or maybe even b43-old. I think if bcm43xx will be replaced with its mac80211 port, it should stay bcm43xx to preserve users' .config and fwpostfix settings. If the softmac and the mac80211 drivers are going to coexist at least in one released kernel, then b43old seems to be a good name for the new driver. -- Regards, Pavel Roskin ___ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
bcm4301 -> bcm43xx-legacy
It turns out that it's better to extend the device support in bcm4301 due to more difficulties in reverse engineering the newer bcm drivers. Newer drivers don't contain support for wireless core ref < 5 anymore. So I suggest we support <5 devices with the legacy driver using v3 firmware. And anything above with v4 firmware with upstream bcm43xx-mac80211. That's actually a nice cutoff point, as rev 5 is when they started using the new microcode format. So, that said, I want to rename all the drivers. My plan was to rename "bcm43xx-mac80211" to "b43", so you could probably rename bcm4301 to b43-legacy or something shorter like b43-leg or maybe even b43-old. Any comments? -- Greetings Michael. ___ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
firmware versions?
Hi, We were just discussing the negative effects of having too many different firmwares (like the problem Andy ran into); if you're using the version 4 driver and have a different firmware than * 343.126 (this is the currently recommended one) * 351.1092 (I'm using that) could you reply with the version you're using? The driver prints something like: bcm43xx-phy0 debug: Loading firmware version 351.1092 (2006-05-13 03:13:11) when it loads. johannes signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
Re: 2.6.23-rc1-wireless-dev bcm43xx_mac80211 associates, but Ethernet appears broken
On Thursday 09 August 2007 02:06:35 Ehud Gavron wrote: > They were *ALL* enabled, even the modules for testing that I didn't load. > They're still there in the built kernel... so if you want something from > it, I can easily reboot into it and get it. > > From another message: > > n IRC was suggested that this might be a compiler bug > > generating corrupt code. > > Which compiler do you use? Can you upgrade or downgrade? > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Download]# cc --version > cc (GCC) 4.1.2 20070502 (Red Hat 4.1.2-12) > Copyright (C) 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc. > This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO > warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. > > I use Yum with F7 Repos, but yes, if need be I can erase the RPM and > install another. Yes, please try with another compiler. You might also change the binutils version. -- Greetings Michael. ___ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
Re: 2.6.23-rc1-wireless-dev bcm43xx_mac80211 associates, but Ethernet appears broken
On Thursday 09 August 2007 04:30:58 Larry Finger wrote: > Ehud, > > I was just reviewing the complete dmesg output that you sent earlier, which I > think was for a "bad" > case. I use WPA encryption, which cannot be done in hardware, and I have not > seen messages that look WPA works fine in hardware, except tkip. -- Greetings Michael. ___ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
