king with can pay for a lot of
developer time.
-Galen
___
ath9k-devel mailing list
ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org
https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
> fairly straightforward.
I tend to think the STBC is probably a lot more foundational than rate control.
That said, I am curious, what changes to the rate control are you planning /
working on?
-Galen
___
ath9k-devel mailing list
ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org
https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
On Feb 22, 2010, at 1:09 PM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
> On 2010-02-22 8:43 PM, Galen wrote:
>> On Feb 22, 2010, at 6:29 AM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
>>> Except for STBC, ath9k seems to have pretty much the same hardware
>>> features as Atheros' other drivers. T
This is an addendum to my earlier reply.
On Feb 22, 2010, at 1:09 PM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
>>> Except for STBC, ath9k seems to have pretty much the same hardware
>>> features as Atheros' other drivers. There may be some workarounds for
>>> various hw issues missing, I have not extensively reviewed
On Feb 24, 2010, at 11:33 AM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
> On 2010-02-24 8:22 PM, Galen wrote:
>> This is an addendum to my earlier reply.
>>
>> On Feb 22, 2010, at 1:09 PM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
>>>>> Except for STBC, ath9k seems to have pretty much the same hardw
On Feb 24, 2010, at 4:33 PM, rootki...@yahoo.it wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 8:41 PM, Galen wrote:
>>
>> On Feb 24, 2010, at 11:33 AM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
>>
>>> On 2010-02-24 8:22 PM, Galen wrote:
>>>> This is an addendum to my earlier rep
On Feb 24, 2010, at 4:39 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 11:41:46AM -0800, Galen wrote:
>>
>> On Feb 24, 2010, at 11:33 AM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
>>
>>> On 2010-02-24 8:22 PM, Galen wrote:
>>>> This is an addendum to my earlier rep
on my experiences thus
far...
-Galen
___
ath9k-devel mailing list
ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org
https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
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 suppor
; No, frankly this is the first time I read about MRC.
>> I just poked a few guys here about MRC and got the clarification
>> above.
>
> I'm confused about your goals, Galen? What is it you're trying to learn about
> the chips? Do you want to understand the RF-level w
ly valuable as it once was. (This is
highly context sensitive though, as 3x3 802.11n APs with 802.11g clients will
probably see big gains, but 3x3 802.11n to 3x3 802.11n will not see as much,
and at extreme range, the TxBF may also keep a very slow connection alive
longer.)
It's p
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
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
>
ed sufficiently to see if there is any benefit.
As for the regulatory stuff - search the list and also check with OpenWRT.
There are many ways to make the radio function on whatever channel you wish.
-Galen
___
ath9k-devel mailing list
ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org
https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
m the guys at Atheros or the community?
Also, what of TPC? (Transmit power control)
-Galen
___
ath9k-devel mailing list
ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org
https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
0x03ff
If RIFS is enabled, I can only imagine that it is handled at the chipset level
because I can't really find any other supporting code involving RIFS - e.g.
when the IEEE80211_TX_CTL_NO_ACK flag is set, the hardware automatically uses
RIFS?
Can anybody clarify? Point me to t
On Sep 27, 2010, at 7:41 AM, Senthilkumar Balasubramanian wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 2:48 AM, Galen wrote:
> On 2010-02-24 Luis Rodriguez wrote this regarding RIFS support:
>
> > Not 100% sure but I actually think we do have it enabled for
> > single-ch
le radios if you require dual-band support. They
are quite inexpensive. Simply set each one up as an AP. If you do not have
enough slots, there are a variety of options for multiplying PCI slots that are
quite affordable. However, options for PCIe are somewhat li
On Oct 14, 2010, at 12:44 PM, Artem Makhutov wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Galen schrieb:
>>
>> On Oct 14, 2010, at 10:11 AM, Artem Makhutov wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> is it possible to create an AP for 2.4 and 5.8 GHz simultaneous using a
>
Last I checked, RIFS support was not implemented in ath9k. Is the lack of
support due to mac80211 limitations, or due to ath9k limitations?
-Galen
___
ath9k-devel mailing list
ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org
https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k
ath9k hardware? If it is a software issue, what is the barrier to
implementation / complexity involved?
Of note, I am aware that A-MPDU is of somewhat limited use for many
applications, so no need to explain why it is not very useful... :)
-Galen
, and I'm not responsible for the contents.
-Galen
___
ath9k-devel mailing list
ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org
https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
On Jan 6, 2011, at 1:21 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Galen wrote:
>> Last I checked, RIFS support was not implemented in ath9k. Is the lack of
>> support due to mac80211 limitations, or due to ath9k limitations?
>
> RIFS support can be e
overhead of the preamble / PLCP for
each frame. Obviously, this is not appropriate in all situations, but for some,
it can be useful.
Can anybody clarify the status of this?
-Galen
___
ath9k-devel mailing list
ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org
https
the extended channels already provided
for in 802.11 specifications?
-Galen
___
ath9k-devel mailing list
ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org
https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
On Jan 7, 2011, at 8:57 AM, Senthilkumar Balasubramanian wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 10:20 PM, Galen wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 6, 2011, at 1:21 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Galen wrote:
>>>> Last I checked, RIF
e configuration) and some idea as to how much time you think
you'll need. I should be able to facilitate remote access testing starting
sometime next week, and I am thinking that I may be able make testing systems
available mostly continuously for weeks or poss
test for you. :(
>
> Best regards,
>
>
> Mihai
I have also had problems with AMSDU length. Try sticking to 3839 to be on the
safe side.
I would like to learn more about the physical limits in Atheros chipsets...
-Galen
___
ath9k-devel
also get other AR9280 solutions widely on eBay - but the quality varies
widely in my experience.
-Galen
On Jul 12, 2011, at 3:10 PM, Grant wrote:
> Is there an 802.11n PCI-E ath9k card available that does 300Mbps and
> works in AP mode?
>
> - Grant
> ___
#x27;s the best
>> AR9280 module on the market - but if I'm wrong, I'd love to be corrected :-)
>>
>> You can also get other AR9280 solutions widely on eBay - but the quality
>> varies widely in my experience.
>>
>> -Galen
>
> You're r
On Jul 13, 2011, at 4:42 PM, Grant wrote:
>> Again, anything with an AR9280 on board will be fine. Some of the
>> antenna arrangements though are a bit .. special.
>
> I'm told this one fits the bill:
>
> http://www.tp-link.com/products/productDetails.asp?pmodel=TL-WN951N
>
> It is said to hav
or 6/11.
3) I would try out the real world situation before you worry too much about
lowering power. Space the cards and antennas a bit apart if possible in the
case, but otherwise just try it out.
-Galen
On Jul 29, 2011, at 4:59 PM, Grant wrote:
>> The SR71-E is a high power NIC. Havi
ly at specific, likely
human-programmed intervals (e.g. 30 seconds) like you're describing...
Sure, it's stupidly simple, but Linux distros have deeply embedded WiFi
connection managers and people sometimes miss them...
-Galen
On Aug 8, 2011, at 6:13 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> .. sorr
On Aug 20, 2011, at 2:22 PM, austin wonderly wrote:
> I am currently using a dlink dwa552 which seems to make hostapd highly
> unstable :/ I would really appreciate some advice as hostapd seems like a
> sort of niche program so I cannot find any other advice on Google :/ I am
> mostly just loo
radio modules from
being active simultaneously?
-Galen
___
ath9k-devel mailing list
ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org
https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
connectivity for the
other active modules.
Any thoughts? If this is not implemented, any idea how difficult this would be
to make happen?
-Galen
___
ath9k-devel mailing list
ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org
https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
On Aug 28, 2011, at 10:08 PM, Alex Hacker wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 11:27:26AM -0700, Galen wrote:
>> Provided that enough PCIe ports are available, along with sufficient memory
>> and CPU, is there any limit to the number of radios that can be supported by
>> at
uickly emerge as the preferred
means of adding bandwidth, with 4x4:4 being something that continues to slowly
grow and only becomes seen much in the wild when 802.11ac hits.
Note that Quantenna has already updated their 4x4:4 chipsets to support
802.11ac.
-Galen
On Jan 17, 2012, at 9:12 AM, Ben Greear
on is primarily focused on these layers as far as i know, I assumed he
was looking for 4 spatial streams.
Keep in mind, beamforming and diversity is very much possible within
implementations the 802.11n specification. The only thing really novel to
802.11ac is the addition of optional downlink MU
39 matches
Mail list logo
