On 7 July 2014 17:08, Oleksij Rempel <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Am 07.07.2014 15:40, schrieb Anders Darander: >> On 4 July 2014 18:54, Oleksij Rempel <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Am 04.07.2014 18:30, schrieb Alan Stern: >>>> On Fri, 4 Jul 2014, Anders Darander wrote: >>>>> ~# usb 1-1: new full-speed USB device number 3 using at91_ohci >>>>> usb 1-1: ath9k_htc: Firmware htc_9271.fw requested >>>>> usb 1-1: ath9k_htc: Transferred FW: htc_9271.fw, size: 51272 >>>>> -----------[ cut here ]----------- >>>>> WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 93 at >>>>> /mnt/cs-builds/anders/oe-build/build-ccu/tmp-eglibc/work/ccu-oe-linux-gnueabi/linux-yocto-ccu/3.14+gitAUTOINC+7b03bd3dfd-r0/linux/drivers/usb/core/urb.c:450 >>>>> usb_submit_urb+0x2ac/0x460() >>>>> usb 1-1: BOGUS urb xfer, pipe 1 != type 3 >> >>>> >>>> I can't tell exactly where the fault is, but this message means that an >>>> URB was submitted for a bulk endpoint with a pipe of type >>>> PIPE_INTERRUPT. >>> >>> Then kernel driver and firmware should be updated. There was some >>> Bulk/Interrupt issues which was fixed last year. >> >> Any pointers to the bulk/interrupt issues? Was it a general issue, or >> related either to >> at91-ohci or ar9271? > > It is primary ar9271 issue. The interrupt EP has different response time > on different host controllers. Initially as workaround ath9k was forcing > Bulk traffic on Interrupt EP. But this workaround is working with some > host controllers and completely fails on others. So i removed it. The > patches are included in master kernel branch and git firmware source. Thanks for the comments! I'll take a look at it, though it might have to be scheduled after the upcoming vacations... I'll sure try to look into those workarounds (and your removal of those). I guess that it's the firmware in open-ath9-htc-firmware you're talking about. >> >> As far as I've been able to find out, I've got the latest firmware >> (check again with linux-firmware). >> I've also tried with the master from open-ath9k-htc-firmware. >> >>> I hope this HW will not be used as AP. >> >> Is this based on the use of at91- SoC, or based on the ar9271? > > ar9271 can work as AP with limit on 8 stations but according to user > reports it fails even with one station on at91 > >> The primary use case is to run as a client, though there will likely >> be some instances where it'll >> function as a AP. (Though primarily for M2M communications), thus >> pretty low traffic. > > For AP usually should be created monitor mode interface for receiving > and transmitting management frames. Depending on location and STAs or > APs working on same channel, you will get a lot of traffic on this usb > interface. > Some users reported huge traffic drops on at91 based APs. Since i can't > debug it, i can't promise that it will be fixed any time soon. Again, thanks for the information. I think I've got a much better understanding of the issues (both those that I've seen, and those that you have mentioned / explained). I'll see when/what I can look into this and what I can find out. Cheers, Anders -- Anders Darander EPO guidelines 1978: "If the contribution to the known art resides solely in a computer program then the subject matter is not patentable in whatever manner it may be presented in the claims." -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
