Re: bcm43xx connects with linux-image-2.6.20-1-powerpc
Jack Malmostoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 16:30:27 +0200, Antonio-M. Corbi Bellot wrote: > >> As other people in this list I had problems (well I couldn't obtain a >> dhcp ip from my router) with 2.6.20 (2.6.18 works flawlessly in this >> aspect) > > One difference I see between .18 and .20 is in the signal strength. > With .18 all networks are at 100% of signal, while with .20 they have > different values. Didn't notice this but I remember having read something about it, I mean it was a known 'bug' and some patch corrected it's behaviour making bcm43xx report the exact signal level instead of always 100%. > Could it be that .20 is actually more "honest" in evaluating the signal > strength? Or is it having "problems" in connecting also because it sees > less signal? Uhmmm, don't know. As for me, the laptop is at the same distance, position etc... from the router with 2.6.18 and 2.6.20, so this is not the problem. A. Corbi. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: bcm43xx connects with linux-image-2.6.20-1-powerpc
On Wednesday 25 April 2007 19:20, Antonio-M. Corbi Bellot wrote: > Jack Malmostoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 16:30:27 +0200, Antonio-M. Corbi Bellot wrote: > >> As other people in this list I had problems (well I couldn't obtain a > >> dhcp ip from my router) with 2.6.20 (2.6.18 works flawlessly in this > >> aspect) > > > > One difference I see between .18 and .20 is in the signal strength. > > With .18 all networks are at 100% of signal, while with .20 they have > > different values. .18.* is reporting much more accurate values than .2*.* kernels. I KNOW I got 100% on local wifi and I also know the other values I usually get on other networks. I to noticed a drop over 50% of my strenght... I can't even get a reading on my router from my bathroom with the latter. > > Didn't notice this but I remember having read something about it, I > mean it was a known 'bug' and some patch corrected it's behaviour > making bcm43xx report the exact signal level instead of always 100%. 17+ kernels has not always shown 100%. It is very close to what osx is showing me. > > > Could it be that .20 is actually more "honest" in evaluating the signal > > strength? Or is it having "problems" in connecting also because it sees > > less signal? Not a chance in hell that it's honest, it's a rather nasty affair witch left me hardboot more than once. > > Uhmmm, don't know. As for me, the laptop is at the same distance, > position etc... from the router with 2.6.18 and 2.6.20, so this is not > the problem. > > A. Corbi. -- --- Børge http://www.arivene.net ---
bcm43xx connects with linux-image-2.6.20-1-powerpc (was: AirportExtreme and resume with 2.6.20)
Hi list: Just saw a new version of linux-image-2.6.20-1-powerpc (-3) and decided to try it and see if I could connect with my wireless network. As other people in this list I had problems (well I couldn't obtain a dhcp ip from my router) with 2.6.20 (2.6.18 works flawlessly in this aspect). Well...seems that 2.6.20-3 still suffers the same problems than previous versions of 2.6.20, but I've discovered a trick: you have to specify the essid of the network you want to connect to, and that's all, so my '/etc/network/interfaces' is something like this: ### allow-auto eth2 iface eth2 inet dhcp wireless-essid my-essid ### And dhclient gets the ip-address from the router without problems. Hope this helps you. A. Corbi -- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: bcm43xx connects with linux-image-2.6.20-1-powerpc (was: AirportExtreme and resume with 2.6.20)
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 16:30:27 +0200, Antonio-M. Corbi Bellot wrote: > As other people in this list I had problems (well I couldn't obtain a > dhcp ip from my router) with 2.6.20 (2.6.18 works flawlessly in this > aspect) One difference I see between .18 and .20 is in the signal strength. With .18 all networks are at 100% of signal, while with .20 they have different values. Could it be that .20 is actually more "honest" in evaluating the signal strength? Or is it having "problems" in connecting also because it sees less signal? Just wondering here, not sure if bcm43xx devs read this list :) -- Best Regards, Jack Linux User #264449 Powered by Debian GNU/Linux on AMD64 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
