Tomas Winkler wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Maxim Levitsky <maximlevitsky@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Tomas Winkler wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 6:06 PM, Maxim Levitsky <maximlevitsky@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Tor Håkon Haugen wrote:
>>>>> John W. Linville wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 03:35:23PM +0800, Zhu Yi wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 2008-06-12 at 09:59 -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
>>>>>>>> Honestly I'm tempted to change it to "enable_hw_scan" instead...
>>>>>>> Give the advantages, I'd like to use it if we can fix the bug (I
>>>>>>> haven't
>>>>>>> seen what the bug is myself). But you are free to change the default
>>>>>>> value until it is fixed. There is no such problem for 4965, right?
>>>>>> AFAICT only the 3945 seems to need it.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I can confirm that this also applies to 4965 as a friend of mine has
>>>>> this card. According to him the card works a lot better with the
>>>>> parameters "swcrypto=1" and "disable_hw_scan=1".
>>>> Just to make it clear,
>>>> iwl3945 doesn't work at all without disable_hw_scan=1 here.
>>>> The driver just shuts down thee card since it detects microcode error.
>>>>
>>> It looks like this is all caused by the big rate, band patch. Looks
>>> like A band scan channels are not configured correctly for the
>>> scanning. This crashes the firmware.
>>>
>>> Tomas
>> Probably, I see that eeprom according to dmesg contains no info about A
>> channels, so maybe this crashes the firmware.
>>
> 
> Can you please send your dmesg.
I did that
(You mean dmesg without disable_hw_scan=1?)

If not what debug options I should include
(I tried same firmware debug options, but the log wrapped around.)

dmesg without disable_hw_scan=1 attached.


> 
>> I have few questions:
>>
>> * Is there a software workaround without the need to update the firmware?
> 
> Yes
> 
>> * Is the firmware error so harmful, so driver can't continue?
> 
> This is firmware misconfiguration.  Driver should be friendly to
> firmware and use correctly API.
> 
>> * Can I expect updated version of the firmware with  fix?
> 
> No need so far.
> 
>> Sadly this confirms that firmware is worse that I thought, it is closer to
>> closed drivers.
> 
> The firmware API is open, it just wasn't used correctly.
I mean if there is a bug in firmware, nobody expect intel can fix it.
BTW you say that firmware api is open,
is there a programming manual for this wireless chip?

> 
>> (Although intel isn't guilty in this case due to regulations.)
> 
> Thanks
> Tomas