firmware versions?

2007-08-09 Thread Johannes Berg
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


bcm4301 - bcm43xx-legacy

2007-08-09 Thread Michael Buesch
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


Re: bcm4301 - bcm43xx-legacy

2007-08-09 Thread Pavel Roskin
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


Re: firmware versions?

2007-08-09 Thread Larry Finger
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: Port of bcm43xx from softmac to mac80211 is available for testing

2007-08-09 Thread Richard Jonsson
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)
___
Bcm43xx-dev mailing list
Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de

Re: bcm4301 - bcm43xx-legacy

2007-08-09 Thread Larry Finger
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

2007-08-09 Thread Pavel Roskin
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

2007-08-09 Thread Michael Buesch
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

2007-08-09 Thread Michael Buesch
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

2007-08-09 Thread Michael Buesch
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

2007-08-09 Thread Larry Finger
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

2007-08-09 Thread Johannes Berg
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

2007-08-09 Thread Larry Finger
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

2007-08-09 Thread Michael Buesch
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: firmware versions?

2007-08-09 Thread David Ellingsworth

 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 moreā€¦.then map the best route!
http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2ss=yp.bars~yp.pizza~yp.movie%20theatercp=42.358996~-71.056691style=rlvl=13tilt=-90dir=0alt=-1000scene=950607encType=1FORM=MGAC01
___
Bcm43xx-dev mailing list
Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev


Re: bcm4301 - bcm43xx-legacy

2007-08-09 Thread John W. Linville
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?

2007-08-09 Thread Larry Finger
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: firmware versions?

2007-08-09 Thread David Ellingsworth

 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_TAGHMloc=us
___
Bcm43xx-dev mailing list
Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev


Re: firmware versions?

2007-08-09 Thread Larry Finger
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