Thread: [Madwifi-devel] DLink DWL-G650
Status: Beta
Brought to you by:
otaku
From: Massimiliano P. <ma...@ha...> - 2003-06-28 15:04:19
Attachments:
smime.p7s
|
Hi all, I have just subscribed to the list and I would like to know a couple of things. I have been able to compile the driver on my laptop, and, after running into some problems, I have been able to setup the ath0 interface. Here are some questions: - Is the actual driver capable of establishing connections either in 802.11 b or g mode ? - I have not been able to setup the essid with: iwconfig ath0 essid "something" or to change channels. - I can set the mode of the card to "Managed" or "Master" but not in "Ad-Hoc" or "Monitor". Is it not yet implemented ? - I tried to connect to an 802.11b access point but when I tried to list the access points I got none in range. - Do you plan to use CVS on sourceforge in future ? Could be helpful to access changes without waiting for a new package release. I know little of kernel-drivers writing, but if you need some help ... :-D I would be happy to help... either by testing the drivers or by providing code... :-D Just another question: I understand the driver to be a port from BSD... well, which BSD (Open/Net/Free) ? Thanks, for your work and time spent on the driver-writing. -- C'you, Massimiliano Pala --o------------------------------------------------------------------------- Massimiliano Pala [OpenCA Project Manager] ma...@op... Tel.: +39 (0)59 270 094 http://www.openca.org Fax: +39 178 221 8225 http://openca.sourceforge.net Mobile: +39 (0)347 7222 365 |
From: Faye P. <fa...@zi...> - 2003-07-06 11:23:17
|
> - Is the actual driver capable of establishing connections either > in 802.11 b or g mode ? I'm using the very same card with a .11g access point right now. > - I have not been able to setup the essid with: > iwconfig ath0 essid "something" > or to change channels. Observation tells me that this driver will only show the value you set iff the ESSID is within range. At the start I couldn't get iwlist scan to work but then I added the modules to /etc/pcmcia/config (configuration later) and when the card was brought up by cardmgr it worked. > - I can set the mode of the card to "Managed" or "Master" but not > in "Ad-Hoc" or "Monitor". Is it not yet implemented ? I can confirm the inability to set to Ad-Hoc. > - I tried to connect to an 802.11b access point but when I tried > to list the access points I got none in range. > There's a post on the user list from a guy using an 802.11b access point. Your inability to iwlist scan may be the same as mine was? Also see the post about a WEP packet structure bug, there's a patch which has been posted to fix this, I have compiled and installed it (it doesn't make anything worse anyway) but I haven't reconfigured for WEP yet. Faye |
From: Faye P. <fa...@zi...> - 2003-07-06 13:57:22
|
On Sunday 06 July 2003 12:21 pm, Faye Pearson wrote: > Also see the post about a WEP packet structure bug, there's a patch which > has been posted to fix this, I have compiled and installed it (it doesn't > make anything worse anyway) but I haven't reconfigured for WEP yet. I tried configuring for 104 bit WEP, it synced as before, but no traffic (as before) I set it to 40 bit WEP and it worked ok. I'm on 40 bit for now. I'm downloading knoppix atm so I can get a tcpdump (hopefully) of the traffic. Faye |
From: Carl T. <ce...@ca...> - 2003-07-06 17:27:38
|
Quoting Faye Pearson <fa...@zi...>: > ... > > - I tried to connect to an 802.11b access point but when I tried > > to list the access points I got none in range. > > There's a post on the user list from a guy using an 802.11b access point. > Your inability to iwlist scan may be the same as mine was? In my tests, I was only able to connect to 802.11a and 802.11g access points. 802.11b did not work. I don't remember seeing a post from anyone sucessfully using 802.11b but maybe I missed it? As a side note, 802.11g performance was spectacularly horrific. > ... > Faye Carl Thompson |
From: Faye P. <fa...@zi...> - 2003-07-07 11:32:31
|
On Sunday 06 July 2003 6:27 pm, Carl Thompson wrote: > In my tests, I was only able to connect to 802.11a and 802.11g access > points. 802.11b did not work. I don't remember seeing a post from anyone > sucessfully using 802.11b but maybe I missed it? I have just successfully linked with work's Orinioco access point which is 802.11b only. It only uses 40 bit WEP though. > As a side note, 802.11g performance was spectacularly horrific. I don't know about spectacularly horrific. It was handling streaming a dvd at the weekend without problems. Also it uses MUCH less CPU than the orinoco prism driver I was using before. I didn't really do a speed benchmark but it was working, which for a beta driver is all you can ask initially. I'd rather showstoppers like 104bit WEP and connections to some other access points not working be fixed before performance was tweaked. Faye |
From: Tino K. <tin...@we...> - 2003-07-07 12:45:31
|
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 12:31:09 +0100, Faye Pearson wrote: > On Sunday 06 July 2003 6:27 pm, Carl Thompson wrote: > > In my tests, I was only able to connect to 802.11a and 802.11g access > > points. 802.11b did not work. I don't remember seeing a post from anyone > > sucessfully using 802.11b but maybe I missed it? > > I have just successfully linked with work's Orinioco access point which is > 802.11b only. It only uses 40 bit WEP though. > > > As a side note, 802.11g performance was spectacularly horrific. > > I don't know about spectacularly horrific. It was handling streaming a dvd at > the weekend without problems. Also it uses MUCH less CPU than the orinoco > prism driver I was using before. I didn't really do a speed benchmark but it 802.11b cards are 16 bit PCMCIA-cards. 802.11g cards are 32 bit CARDBUS-cards. 16 bit cards take much more CPU power than cardbus cards and have a much lower maximum transfer rate. So IMHO it was not the orinoco driver that was CPU hungry. Regards, Tino |
From: Sam L. <sa...@er...> - 2003-07-06 17:47:03
|
> Quoting Faye Pearson <fa...@zi...>: > >> ... > >> > - I tried to connect to an 802.11b access point but when I tried >> > to list the access points I got none in range. >> >> There's a post on the user list from a guy using an 802.11b access point. >> Your inability to iwlist scan may be the same as mine was? > > In my tests, I was only able to connect to 802.11a and 802.11g access > points. 802.11b did not work. I don't remember seeing a post from anyone > sucessfully using 802.11b but maybe I missed it? > > As a side note, 802.11g performance was spectacularly horrific. > > I get 15-16 Mb/s running netperf through an 11g AP (one made by Atheros) under BSD systems. That said I've done very little 11g work and certainly no interoperability testing. See also my previous note where I repeated that Linux performance is an unreliable indicator of the hardware. Sam |
From: Carl T. <ce...@ca...> - 2003-07-06 18:11:08
|
Quoting Sam Leffler <sa...@er...>: > ... > I get 15-16 Mb/s running netperf through an 11g AP (one made by Atheros) > under BSD systems. That said I've done very little 11g work and > certainly no interoperability testing. See also my previous note where > I repeated that Linux performance is an unreliable indicator of the > hardware. I suspect that the need for working Linux drivers is at least an order of magnitude higher than the need for BSD so maybe Linux should be the focus? I'm not bad-mouthing BSD; in many respects it really is better than Linux. It's just that Linux has many, many more users (desktop, workstation and server) so it's what most people need to support. It seems to me that if you a have choice (and I respect that you may not) it may be more useful for more people if your focus shifts to Linux. Of course, you did all the hard work so you get to choose what you want to focus on! Thanks again for the driver! > Sam Carl Thompson |
From: Sam L. <sa...@er...> - 2003-07-06 18:22:34
|
> I suspect that the need for working Linux drivers is at least an order of > magnitude higher than the need for BSD so maybe Linux should be the > focus? Find someone that'll fund doing this stuff and you'll find someone that'll work on it. Until then you get my time as it's available. Sam |
From: Sam L. <sa...@er...> - 2003-07-06 18:30:01
|
>> I suspect that the need for working Linux drivers is at least an order of >> magnitude higher than the need for BSD so maybe Linux should be the >> focus? > > Find someone that'll fund doing this stuff and you'll find someone > that'll work on it. Until then you get my time as it's available. > Sorry if this sounded flip or angry. The point of this is that some folks (like myself) do this sort of work for a livelihood and can't simply do one thing or another because it's more fun. We've made all the work available so someone/everyone can help improve it. I've tried not to play the BSD vs Linux thing because it's not really relevant here except to indicate that Linux users _CAN_ get reasonable performance with a bit of work--we know the issues are not in the HAL; they are in the driver. There are certainly other problems that are in the HAL and I'm working on those since noone else can. Sam |
From: Carl T. <ce...@ca...> - 2003-07-06 19:27:11
|
I understand completely. You have done everyone in both the Linux and BSD "communities" a great service with your work. You have delivered working drivers that handle very complex hardware. You've done all the hard work for us and for that I thank you! I myself have been meaning to learn more about kernel and driver programming so here's my chance. So I was interested in seeing whether the driver would work in Linux 2.5 and it seemed that the only thing needed is to translated the task_queue stuff to work_queue stuff. I think I have done that, but I need to figure out the magic that makes the kernel think a .o is a module in 2.5 'cause when I try to insert it I get an invalid module format error. Anyone know anything about this? Carl Thompson Quoting Sam Leffler <sa...@er...>: > >> I suspect that the need for working Linux drivers is at least an order > of > >> magnitude higher than the need for BSD so maybe Linux should be the > >> focus? > > > > Find someone that'll fund doing this stuff and you'll find someone > > that'll work on it. Until then you get my time as it's available. > > > > Sorry if this sounded flip or angry. The point of this is that some > folks > (like myself) do this sort of work for a livelihood and can't simply do > one > thing or another because it's more fun. We've made all the work > available > so someone/everyone can help improve it. I've tried not to play the BSD > vs > Linux thing because it's not really relevant here except to indicate that > Linux users _CAN_ get reasonable performance with a bit of work--we know > the issues are not in the HAL; they are in the driver. There are > certainly > other problems that are in the HAL and I'm working on those since noone > else can. > > Sam > > > |
From: Faye P. <fa...@zi...> - 2003-07-06 11:35:14
|
I forgot to add the config entries onto the last post :/ device "ath_pci" class "network" module "wlan", "ath_hal", "ath_pci" # This manfid may be specific to the DLink DWL-G650 but it's the only # card I have so I don't know :) card "Atheros 802.11g 54 Mbps Wireless Adapter" manfid 0x0271, 0x0012 bind "ath_pci" With this configuration, the card is initialised when cardmgr is started. Faye |
From: Carl T. <ce...@ca...> - 2003-07-06 17:30:33
|
Quoting Faye Pearson <fa...@zi...>: > I forgot to add the config entries onto the last post :/ > > device "ath_pci" > class "network" module "wlan", "ath_hal", "ath_pci" > > # This manfid may be specific to the DLink DWL-G650 but it's the only > # card I have so I don't know :) > > card "Atheros 802.11g 54 Mbps Wireless Adapter" > manfid 0x0271, 0x0012 > bind "ath_pci" > > With this configuration, the card is initialised when cardmgr is started. Hmmm... In my set up this was not necessary. The kernel automagically seemed to know what driver to load when the card was inserted (perhaps from the depmod info?). > Faye Carl Thompson |
From: Sam L. <sa...@er...> - 2003-06-28 18:48:55
|
> I have just subscribed to the list and I would like to know a couple of > things. I have been able to compile the driver on my laptop, and, after > running into some problems, I have been able to setup the ath0 interface. > > Here are some questions: > > - Is the actual driver capable of establishing connections either > in 802.11 b or g mode ? > Yes. Depending on the card you have (you've provided no info) the driver will scan all available channels looking for AP's. If an AP that supports 11g is selected then you'll get 11g. Note that 11g is only supported by 5212-based cards. > - I have not been able to setup the essid with: > > iwconfig ath0 essid "something" > > or to change channels. > I've seen cases where the driver does not respond to management requests (e.g. set channel) if it's actively scanning for an AP to associate with. Never figured out why. Module parameters might help in this regard but they should not be needed; the code is supposed to work regardless. > - I can set the mode of the card to "Managed" or "Master" but not > in "Ad-Hoc" or "Monitor". Is it not yet implemented ? > Monitor mode is not supported. Adhoc mode is untested. If the card was not responding to simple management operations like setting the ssid it's unlikely to respond to a request to change it's operating mode. > - I tried to connect to an 802.11b access point but when I tried > to list the access points I got none in range. > Works for me. Can't help w/o more info. > - Do you plan to use CVS on sourceforge in future ? Could be helpful > to access changes without waiting for a new package release. > Eventually. We're not trying to hoard the code just figure out the right way to keep things pointed in the right direction. In addition to the Linux support there is also BSD support that is more actively developed (at the moment). At some point these two paths of development may (will?) diverge but for now I'm trying to share as much effort as possible so everyone benefits. > I know little of kernel-drivers writing, but if you need some help ... :-D > I would be happy to help... either by testing the drivers or by providing > code... :-D > > Just another question: I understand the driver to be a port from BSD... > well, which BSD (Open/Net/Free) ? The code was committed to FreeBSD this week. Sam |