On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Norbert Preining <preining@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Do, 28 Jun 2012, Johannes Berg wrote: >> Somehow your mail didn't make it to the lists, not sure why. > > Hmm, yeah, some of the emails were privte exchange with > Venkataraman and Lin. > >> Fun. I don't actually see how this can possibly happen though?! > > Hmm, actually I think I have seen similar things quite regularly, > and reported them also. > >> > > > > [ 9457.176828] iwlwifi 0000:06:00.0: ACTIVATE a non DRIVER active >> > > > >station id 0 addr 00:24:c4:ab:bd:e0 >> > >> > These messages now appear only now and then. >> >> I fixed those recently. > > Good. Just a report to say that I still see those in 3.5.0-rc5. I recently moved from a Dell Latitude 6400, with a bcm4322 chip managed by the Broadcom-STA out-of-tree driver (wl module) to the new Latitude 6420, which has this as per lspci: 02:00.0 Network controller: Intel Corporation Centrino Advanced-N 6205 (rev 34) and I have two issues compared to the bcm4322; one is the above message, which appears when the driver can't associate to my D-Link DSL2740B router; telnetting into the router and bouncing its AP component via wlctl is enough to allow the laptop to connect again. At the same time, my wife's old 32-bit Dell D610 with an ipw2200 connects just fine to the DSL-2740B. The second issue is that the wifi speed is much lower with the new 6420 under iwlwifi - topping out at under 3MB/s compared with peaks of 10MB/s with the bcm4322's wl driver, which hardly ever went under 6MB/s. iwconfig wlan0 reports fluctuating bitrates of 18/24/36 Mb/s whereas I could see very easily 130Mb/s with the wl driver. Maybe something is also due to the fact that the DSL-2740B has a draft-N implementation and its Broadcom chip has better feelings with the laptop's Broadcom wl than the iwlwifi. I'm available for more detailed reporting and testing. Thanks, >> You seem to be on 3.5.0-rc now, is that really no different from 3.4? > > The feeling is that it is definitely better. > > I can actually work now wirelessly, and in case of hangs an rfkill block > rfkill unblock practically always, and mostly is not needed. > > So yes, it is better, definitely. > > I think till 3.4 I had to use the cable quite regularly. > > Best wishes > > Norbert --alessandro "don't underestimate the things that I will do" (Adele, "Rolling In The Deep") -- 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
