Hi guys:
I am using bcm4311 connect with a Ap(Dlink624+) under "shared key"
authorized mode.
But the dmesg show "eth1: authentication with AP 00:17:89:55:ed:df
timed out". When I search the mails and found Johannes Berg had said
that "the shared key is not support at Jan 2006". I want to know is i
> Good. This looks like success to me.
>
Looks like sucess, but I am not very happy using
bcm43xx softmac driver. That's why I'm testing bcm43xx-mac80211.
For example why in "rate auto" speed does not goes up than 11M?
:~# iwconfig wlan0 rate auto
:~# iwconfig wlan0
wlan0 IEEE 802.11b/g ESSID:
Hi,
my log is full with this messages: Can someone explain me, what the mean?
SoftMAC: Already associating or associated to 00:14:1b:60:6a:40
SoftMAC: Scanning finished: scanned 14 channels starting with channel 1
SoftMAC: generic IE set to dd160050f2010150f2020150f2020150f201
SoftMAC
In code manipulating the TM State Low register of 802.11 cores, two
different magic numbers are used to reference the 'G Mode Enable' bit.
One of these, 0x2000, is clear, but the other, (0x800 << 18), is not.
This patch replaces both types with a defined constant. In addition, two
bits in the T
Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Monday 12 March 2007 21:28, Larry Finger wrote:
>> Stefano Brivio wrote:
>>> On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 00:51:19 -0500
>>>
>>> Well, wait. I'd want to see some performance improvements before the patch
>>> is applied. That's why I didn't send it to John and put RFT in the
>>> su
On Monday 12 March 2007 21:28, Larry Finger wrote:
> Stefano Brivio wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 00:51:19 -0500
> >
> > Well, wait. I'd want to see some performance improvements before the patch
> > is applied. That's why I didn't send it to John and put RFT in the
> > subject. Are there any?
>
Stefano Brivio wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 00:51:19 -0500
>
> Well, wait. I'd want to see some performance improvements before the patch
> is applied. That's why I didn't send it to John and put RFT in the
> subject. Are there any?
No, I don't see any significant difference in RX or TX throughpu
Joe,
Joseph Jezak wrote:
> David Woodhouse wrote:
>> On Fri, 2007-03-02 at 11:30 -0600, Larry Finger wrote:
>>> There was an error in the B5PHY init specifications.
>> This patch doesn't fix the machine check in bcm43xx_phy_initb5 which
>> Pavel Roskin and I reported a couple of weeks ago. To get
John W. Linville wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 12:42:18PM -0500, Larry Finger wrote:
>> David Woodhouse wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 10:53 -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
FWIW, by inspection it looks like the mac80211-based driver is
(trying?) to implement this change.
Dav
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 04:16:34PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 10:53 -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
> >
> > FWIW, by inspection it looks like the mac80211-based driver is
> > (trying?) to implement this change.
> >
> > David, have you tried the mac80211 version? Does it
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 12:42:18PM -0500, Larry Finger wrote:
> David Woodhouse wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 10:53 -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
> >> FWIW, by inspection it looks like the mac80211-based driver is
> >> (trying?) to implement this change.
> >>
> >> David, have you tried the mac8
David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 10:53 -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
>> FWIW, by inspection it looks like the mac80211-based driver is
>> (trying?) to implement this change.
>>
>> David, have you tried the mac80211 version? Does it still have the
>> same crash?
>
> Should the one i
On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 10:53 -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
>
> FWIW, by inspection it looks like the mac80211-based driver is
> (trying?) to implement this change.
>
> David, have you tried the mac80211 version? Does it still have the
> same crash?
Should the one in 2.6.20-1.2982.fc7 be OK? I c
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 09:23:30AM -0400, Joseph Jezak wrote:
> David Woodhouse wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-03-02 at 11:30 -0600, Larry Finger wrote:
> >> There was an error in the B5PHY init specifications.
> >
> > This patch doesn't fix the machine check in bcm43xx_phy_initb5 which
> > Pavel Roskin
David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-03-02 at 11:30 -0600, Larry Finger wrote:
>> There was an error in the B5PHY init specifications.
>
> This patch doesn't fix the machine check in bcm43xx_phy_initb5 which
> Pavel Roskin and I reported a couple of weeks ago. To get rid of that
> crash, I still
15 matches
Mail list logo