From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from dev-nolb.cloudtrax.com ([54.203.245.161]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1W5C7V-0000Rq-RQ for ath10k@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 10:30:18 +0000 From: Sven Eckelmann Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Initial 11ac support using ath10k Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 11:29:26 +0100 Message-ID: <2241060.ARHWKI05xP@bentobox> In-Reply-To: <878uudps7f.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> References: <1513091.zjVOOQ7NvD@bentobox> <87mwitpsmn.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> <878uudps7f.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7622804427486776950==" Sender: "ath10k" Errors-To: ath10k-bounces+kvalo=adurom.com@lists.infradead.org To: Kalle Valo Cc: Simon Wunderlich , "openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org" , "ath10k@lists.infradead.org" , Matti Laakso --===============7622804427486776950== Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart2167833.AYiT05pXtr"; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" --nextPart2167833.AYiT05pXtr Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Saturday 18 January 2014 01:14:28 Kalle Valo wrote: > > I've picked up the patches and rebased them on top of the current master > > branch/trunk. > > Where did you take the ath10k patches? ath10k is under heavy > development, so I strongly recommend taking patches directly from > ath-next branch of my ath.git. That way you would be using the latest > and greatest. They were taken from the wireless-testing repo. But it seems that (for obvious reasons) the OpenWrt maintainers doesn't want so apply so many patches. But it is a good source [1] for future tests. > > Just as general information to the state of ath10k, my current test showed > > > > some problems with it: > > * Samsung GT-I9300 only got horrible slow connections to an QCA9880 but > > > > an Intel N6205 (using iwlwifi from v3.12) or Samsung S4 worked > > "fine" > > Could you report the I9300 issue to the ath10k list with more details, > please? We can try to investigate it. This is a little bit problematic. I could reproduce this problem quite well on a specific date and when I tried some other day it worked fine. So it is hard to report anything. The only thing I could report would be the "Failed to add peer" problem which seemed to happen at the same time. Maybe I find a way to reproduce it reliable but I don't know how at the moment. > > * Adhoc mode doesn't work at all > > That was with 10.1 firmware? AFAIK it doesn't support adhoc at all. I > think we need to add a firmware feature flag to disable adhoc with that > firmware. It used the latest and greatest, stable(?) version of the firmware when the patchset was generated: ap/firmware-2.bin_10.1.467-1 The statement "doesn't support adhoc at all" makes me a little bit nervous. Would you say that it is better to completely ignore the "ap" directory of the firmware repo [2]? Which benefits does the ap firmware has over the ath10k firmware? At the end I would most likely run something like this: * 1 AP dev with WPA (1/2, TKIP and/or CCMP, PSK or Enterprise) * 1 AP dev without WPA * 1 adhoc dev with IBSS RSN (running something like batman-adv over infrastructure mode is a little bit lame ;) ) But it also has to be able to use a dev in managed mode. This worked quite well in the past with ath9k and thus I was checking ath10k to decide if it is an interesting platform/driver for the future. > > * Sometimes adding of station seems to fail: > > ath10k: Failed to add peer 5c:0a:5b:4e:6a:c4 for vdev 1 when adding a > > new > > sta: -145 > > This is new to me. Can you report this to the ath10k list, please? I will try to reproduce it and report it in a separate thread when I have more useful information. > > * Adhoc interface + "iw dev wlan0 scan trigger" just crashes the firmware: > > [ 296.160000] ath10k: firmware crashed! > > [ 296.170000] ath10k: hardware name qca988x hw2.0 version 0x4100016c > > [ 296.170000] ath10k: firmware version: 65.467.0.0 > > What firmware version was this? The version printed here seems to be > corrupted. ap/firmware-2.bin_10.1.467-1 Kind regards, Sven [1] https://github.com/kvalo/ath [2] https://github.com/kvalo/ath10k-firmware --nextPart2167833.AYiT05pXtr Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAABCgAGBQJS3PqGAAoJEF2HCgfBJntGu9sQANjqi9JuI68klfhK4Wta98Yh zS7Ob4cBS4n9PG6QjGvXHL6bNyQZwGVODwqhDwrJKm2Tc3l8qGXyHxOvsHF0qWel s1XlY3p8OIVIFbhLKzweumMObhQmM0UE6XrsW218xlmlvrBDFx6OsWvpbMgHweZS /S3+f9YrPEbY5g9+jEBM8IK/VBq/50kn1E8TGibf05VM0n3k8XQWErjJ+BeSBQuq UVJc1OcFp0rO+p2RA7XePHSwROXGqAqpe490bfNM5ksQ7Z8PIbXwZ/d8mBw5kBk7 4gzoUaf5NIwuAEsfB1/FJ/z6C3xPwrEcsyqeKwolBygqGJJtU0IfBbZ0G/T2/PDj cDtstS9WZZxud0UxqiVI3C4YhUr+Y5nQlgqi8+uEoYmjp9WhLq6ix1YwwMlu/k2e EGM8GE4BbCMeDeig+1qBMfFGdfxtBqaXr+TxE+1PsY9X87WU7pLX/qqPkUQcfxnK FhU9pS4eTDy4D/KoWjB4+tZWyS0Mf27a81fNIccPtsQPJjHCkuLhsXMnwX4nGS46 XuZa465QTV4mrNi5HlzrNJPxrd1CcHEB7UscMiWBZ0wmtmJXQ9MacZsgT3T93Anr BFSvRSYkECoX2GqimXo7EzbghDkqP1vmz4AE9p3OxGFpRPRYI5SvRQlmKNzgzsAf yOlajbzV9yfjEeMst6SY =6LQo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart2167833.AYiT05pXtr-- --===============7622804427486776950== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ ath10k mailing list ath10k@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k --===============7622804427486776950==--