Re: [ath9k-devel] trouble with DWA-552 and ath9k

2010-02-26 Thread Pavel Roskin
On Thu, 2010-02-25 at 20:10 -0500, Brian Walker wrote: > You do indeed appear to have the exact same DWA-552 as me. Is it > possible that the problem is with the way my older PIII AX63Pro > motherboard is interacting with the card? The only difference I see is > the latency on mine is 32 and no

Re: [ath9k-devel] Ath9k MIMO Performance versus Proprietary Drivers

2010-02-26 Thread Luis R. Rodriguez
Note: this thread is on a public mailing list! I've added a few marketing folks. On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Galen wrote: > > On Feb 26, 2010, at 8:42 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > >> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 08:03:57PM -0800, Galen wrote: >>> I am aware of the AR9300 features / SST3. >>> >

Re: [ath9k-devel] Ath9k MIMO Performance versus Proprietary Drivers

2010-02-26 Thread Galen
On Feb 26, 2010, at 8:42 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 08:03:57PM -0800, Galen wrote: >> I am aware of the AR9300 features / SST3. >> >> The AR9100 and AR9200 also contains SST > > Oh? I thought SST thing was the marketing name for our > full solution of 3 stream for 80

Re: [ath9k-devel] AR Chipset Differences

2010-02-26 Thread Galen
On Feb 26, 2010, at 9:23 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 08:08:31AM -0800, Galen wrote: >> I'm trying to determine the differences in features of the various Atheros >> chipsets supported by ath9k. Please note, I have only chosen dual band parts >> with at least 2 spatial

Re: [ath9k-devel] Ath9k MIMO Performance versus Proprietary Drivers

2010-02-26 Thread Galen
>> Right - so the MRC functionality is in the chip's DSP and entirely >> invisible to the software? Yes? Just being 100% clear here... > > Beats me. I haven't dealt with MRC at all in software so I guess. > And to be clear, you think the 802.11n chipsets before the AR9300 *do not* inclu

Re: [ath9k-devel] Ath9k MIMO Performance versus Proprietary Drivers

2010-02-26 Thread Luis R. Rodriguez
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 12:45:02PM -0800, Galen wrote: > > On Feb 26, 2010, at 8:45 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 09:37:12PM -0800, Galen wrote: > >> On Feb 24, 2010, at 4:39 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > >>> MRC is supported on all 11n chipsets, but not for cck rate

Re: [ath9k-devel] Ath9k MIMO Performance versus Proprietary Drivers

2010-02-26 Thread Galen
On Feb 26, 2010, at 9:13 AM, Daniel Halperin wrote: > On Feb 26, 2010, at 8:45 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > >>> Luis - can you comment on the MRC implementation? Is this entirely >>> invisible to ath9k, or is this implemented / supported in software? >> >> No, frankly this is the first time I

Re: [ath9k-devel] Ath9k MIMO Performance versus Proprietary Drivers

2010-02-26 Thread Galen
On Feb 26, 2010, at 8:45 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 09:37:12PM -0800, Galen wrote: >> On Feb 24, 2010, at 4:39 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >>> MRC is supported on all 11n chipsets, but not for cck rates. >>> TX beamforming is only supported on the shiny new AR93xx >>>

Re: [ath9k-devel] Ath9k MIMO Performance versus Proprietary Drivers

2010-02-26 Thread Daniel Halperin
On Feb 26, 2010, at 8:45 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> Luis - can you comment on the MRC implementation? Is this entirely >> invisible to ath9k, or is this implemented / supported in software? > > No, frankly this is the first time I read about MRC. > I just poked a few guys here about MRC and

Re: [ath9k-devel] Ath9k MIMO Performance versus Proprietary Drivers

2010-02-26 Thread Luis R. Rodriguez
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 09:13:28AM -0800, Daniel Halperin wrote: > p.p.s. If you do want to learn more about the RF side of things and are > willing to tackle an explanation written for computer scientists without a > strong EE / RF signal processing background, you can check out our tutorial >

Re: [ath9k-devel] AR Chipset Differences

2010-02-26 Thread Luis R. Rodriguez
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 08:08:31AM -0800, Galen wrote: > I'm trying to determine the differences in features of the various Atheros > chipsets supported by ath9k. Please note, I have only chosen dual band parts > with at least 2 spatial stream support, as the single band parts are > generally su

Re: [ath9k-devel] Ath9k MIMO Performance versus Proprietary Drivers

2010-02-26 Thread Luis R. Rodriguez
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 09:37:12PM -0800, Galen wrote: > On Feb 24, 2010, at 4:39 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > MRC is supported on all 11n chipsets, but not for cck rates. > > TX beamforming is only supported on the shiny new AR93xx > > chipsets. TX beamforming seems to have been supported on >

Re: [ath9k-devel] Ath9k MIMO Performance versus Proprietary Drivers

2010-02-26 Thread Luis R. Rodriguez
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 08:03:57PM -0800, Galen wrote: > I am aware of the AR9300 features / SST3. > > The AR9100 and AR9200 also contains SST Oh? I thought SST thing was the marketing name for our full solution of 3 stream for 802.11n. > It is not always mentioned, but it is present in many dif

[ath9k-devel] AR Chipset Differences

2010-02-26 Thread Galen
I'm trying to determine the differences in features of the various Atheros chipsets supported by ath9k. Please note, I have only chosen dual band parts with at least 2 spatial stream support, as the single band parts are generally subsets of the dual band parts and the <2 spatial stream parts ar