On Thu, 2010-11-11 at 09:45 +0900, Aaron Gutman wrote: > On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 5:48 AM, Inaky Perez-Gonzalez > <inaky at linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > > > thus is not really surprising it fails to connect. -85 dBm in > any case is so borderline > it fails most of the times. I'd really like this software to > be more conservative. > > Have you tried this in another location? > > > It is a weak signal in the spot I took the log. Weak, although I am > able to connect in Windows. I did try in places where I get a > stronger signal, and it still failed. I can capture a new log there > if helpful. That is ... annoying--it's the same signal--I am wondering if one software has better pre-provisioning data than the other and thus can find basestations better; I'd like to see the capture though. Unfortunately, I can't glimmer more information out of the logs on why it fails. So I kind of have to work it out based on discarding things. > Unfortunately WiMAX coverage in my location (Tokyo) is pretty spotty. > Maybe other places are better, but in my case, I'd like the software > to be the -least- conservative possible =) Maybe you could make it > a tunable? The user space software is in maintenance mode, I don't have the resources (time) to add new features to it, although I'll gladly take patches. In any case, it seems that the problem is another one in this case.
