From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail.candelatech.com ([208.74.158.172] helo=ns3.lanforge.com) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1WQJs6-0001Vw-O1 for ath10k@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 17:01:43 +0000 Received: from [192.168.100.236] (firewall.candelatech.com [70.89.124.249]) (authenticated bits=0) by ns3.lanforge.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id s2JH1LE6027438 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 10:01:21 -0700 Message-ID: <5329CD60.6080609@candelatech.com> Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 10:01:20 -0700 From: Ben Greear MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Trouble connecting to broadcom AC APs? List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "ath10k" Errors-To: ath10k-bounces+kvalo=adurom.com@lists.infradead.org To: ath10k We are seeing various funny things when trying to connect ath10k stations to commercial APs with broadcom AC NICs. It sort of works sometimes, but we often see failure to acquire DHCP lease in a timely manner, etc. Similar testing on APs using QCA AC NICs appears to work much better. Our problems could be most anything, including the fact that this testing is done on our modified firmware, but I am curious if anyone else seems any similar issues? Thanks, Ben -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com _______________________________________________ ath10k mailing list ath10k@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k