Intel PRO/Wireless 2100 vs. Broadcom BCM9430x

Intel PRO/Wireless 2100 vs. Broadcom BCM9430x

[Marc Sowen]

Hi everybody,

I hope this is not too off-topic, but the fact is that neither the Intel
PRO/Wireless 2100 (Centrino) chipset nor the Broadcom BCM9430x (e.g.
Dell Truemobile 1180/1300/1400) chipset is currently supported in Linux
due to FCC regulation problems.

Anyhow, I plan to get a new Notebook within the next 2 or 3 weeks and I
need to decide, whether to go for the Intel PRO/Wireless 2100 or the
Broadcom BCM9430x chipset. I know it's hard to say, but what do you
think, which company (Intel or Broadcom) is more likely to release the
necessary documents and/or drivers for their chipsets? Both companys
seem to ignore all inquiries concerning Linux support at the moment.

While we're at it, are there any news from the WLAN front?

Thank you!

Marc

Re: Intel PRO/Wireless 2100 vs. Broadcom BCM9430x

[Joel Jaeggli]

most laptop vendors that provide multiple wireless options also support 
the cisco aironet minipci card, you can allways vote with your wallet if 
you think linux support for wireless chipsets is valuable.

joelja

On Thu, 12 Jun 2003, Marc Sowen wrote:

> Hi everybody,
> 
> I hope this is not too off-topic, but the fact is that neither the Intel
> PRO/Wireless 2100 (Centrino) chipset nor the Broadcom BCM9430x (e.g.
> Dell Truemobile 1180/1300/1400) chipset is currently supported in Linux
> due to FCC regulation problems.
> 
> Anyhow, I plan to get a new Notebook within the next 2 or 3 weeks and I
> need to decide, whether to go for the Intel PRO/Wireless 2100 or the
> Broadcom BCM9430x chipset. I know it's hard to say, but what do you
> think, which company (Intel or Broadcom) is more likely to release the
> necessary documents and/or drivers for their chipsets? Both companys
> seem to ignore all inquiries concerning Linux support at the moment.
> 
> While we're at it, are there any news from the WLAN front?
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> Marc
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> 

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Joel Jaeggli	      Academic User Services   joelja@darkwing.uoregon.edu    
--    PGP Key Fingerprint: 1DE9 8FCA 51FB 4195 B42A 9C32 A30D 121E      --
  In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last
  resort of the scoundrel.  With all due respect to an enlightened but
  inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first.
	   	            -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"

Cisco Aironet mini-PCI wireless card (MPI-350) [Was: Re: Intel PRO/Wireless 2100 vs. Broadcom BCM9430x]

[Jan Mynarik]

Hi,

Cisco's linux support is great until you have IBM's ThinkPad R40. With
this notebook, their newest Linux driver (version 2.0, older ones do not
support my card) module (mpi350.o) can't be inserted to kernel (oops and
module remains 'initializing' forever). Module is compiled successfully
against both 2.4.20 and 2.4.21-rc7 kernels.

I'm just fighting their bureaucracy (in support) and trying to reach
someone who actually wrote the driver (module says Roland Wilcher). I
want to help him with testing and provide him with all possible
information.

My other chance is to get working new driver from
http://airo-linux.sf.net, but there is no activity in last several
weeks.

Jan Mynarik


On Thu, 2003-06-12 at 17:16, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> most laptop vendors that provide multiple wireless options also support 
> the cisco aironet minipci card, you can allways vote with your wallet if 
> you think linux support for wireless chipsets is valuable.
> 
> joelja
> 
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2003, Marc Sowen wrote:
> 
> > Hi everybody,
> > 
> > I hope this is not too off-topic, but the fact is that neither the Intel
> > PRO/Wireless 2100 (Centrino) chipset nor the Broadcom BCM9430x (e.g.
> > Dell Truemobile 1180/1300/1400) chipset is currently supported in Linux
> > due to FCC regulation problems.
> > 
> > Anyhow, I plan to get a new Notebook within the next 2 or 3 weeks and I
> > need to decide, whether to go for the Intel PRO/Wireless 2100 or the
> > Broadcom BCM9430x chipset. I know it's hard to say, but what do you
> > think, which company (Intel or Broadcom) is more likely to release the
> > necessary documents and/or drivers for their chipsets? Both companys
> > seem to ignore all inquiries concerning Linux support at the moment.
> > 
> > While we're at it, are there any news from the WLAN front?
> > 
> > Thank you!
> > 
> > Marc
> > 
> > -
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> > More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> > 
-- 
Jan Mynarik <mynarikj@phoenix.inf.upol.cz>

Re: Cisco Aironet mini-PCI wireless card (MPI-350) [Was: Re: Intel PRO/Wireless 2100 vs. Broadcom BCM9430x]

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1118 bytes --]

On Thu, 2003-06-12 at 10:20, Jan Mynarik wrote:
> Cisco's linux support is great until you have IBM's ThinkPad R40. With
> this notebook, their newest Linux driver (version 2.0, older ones do not
> support my card) module (mpi350.o) can't be inserted to kernel (oops and
> module remains 'initializing' forever). Module is compiled successfully
> against both 2.4.20 and 2.4.21-rc7 kernels.
> 
> I'm just fighting their bureaucracy (in support) and trying to reach
> someone who actually wrote the driver (module says Roland Wilcher). I
> want to help him with testing and provide him with all possible
> information.

Downgrade your firmware.  On the Cisco site, there's a Linux driver
paired with a particular firmware version.  Use it: there's a bug in the
kernel driver in which it reads stuff out of the card's RIDs into a
local structure, but using the card's RID size.  The newer firmware has
increased the structure sizes for some RIDs, which overruns the stack
and crashes.

I have attached a patch for the driver to fix the crash, but I'm not
confident the card works well without the correct firmware.

	J


[-- Attachment #2: rid-size-fix.diff --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 4117 bytes --]

--- mpi350.c.orig	2003-05-22 17:20:42.000000000 -0700
+++ mpi350.c	2003-05-23 15:37:26.000000000 -0700
@@ -135,7 +135,7 @@
 struct net_device *init_venus_card(struct pci_dev *);
 void   venus_remove(void);
 static int  venus_probe(struct pci_dev *);
-static int vreadrid(struct venus_info *,unsigned short,unsigned char *);
+static int vreadrid(struct venus_info *,unsigned short,unsigned char *,unsigned int);
 static int vwriterid(struct venus_info *,unsigned short,unsigned char *);
 static void venus_interrupt( int irq, void* dev_id, struct pt_regs    *regs);
 static int venus_ioctl(struct net_device *dev, struct ifreq *rq, int cmd);
@@ -442,7 +442,7 @@
     printk(KERN_INFO "MIC interrupt\n");
 #endif
     venusout(v_info,V_EVACK,EV_MIC);
-    vreadrid((struct venus_info *)dev->priv,RID_MIC,(char *)&mic);
+    vreadrid((struct venus_info *)dev->priv,RID_MIC,(char *)&mic,sizeof(mic));
     micinit(v_info,&mic);
     enable_interrupts(v_info);
     spin_unlock(&v_info->mpi_lock);
@@ -845,7 +845,7 @@
 	memset( data->wbuffer, 0, 33*3 );
 	data->on_close = proc_ssid_on_close;
 	
-	vreadrid(vi,RID_SSLIST,(unsigned char *)SSID_rid);
+	vreadrid(vi,RID_SSLIST,(unsigned char *)SSID_rid,sizeof(blargbuf));
 
 	ptr = data->rbuffer;
 
@@ -881,8 +881,8 @@
 	data = (struct proc_data *)file->private_data;
 	data->rbuffer = kmalloc( 2048, GFP_KERNEL );
 	
-	vreadrid(vi,RID_STATUS,(unsigned char *)&status_rid);
-	vreadrid(vi,RID_CAPABILITIES,(unsigned char *)&cap_rid);
+	vreadrid(vi,RID_STATUS,(unsigned char *)&status_rid,sizeof(status_rid));
+	vreadrid(vi,RID_CAPABILITIES,(unsigned char *)&cap_rid,sizeof(cap_rid));
 
 	sprintf( data->rbuffer, "Mode: %x\n"
 		 "Signal Strength: %d\n"
@@ -935,7 +935,7 @@
  * Return 0 on sucess or other on failure . Uses the len value of all rids 
  * in the first 2 bytes .
  */
-static int vreadrid(struct venus_info *v_info,unsigned short rid,unsigned char *ridp){
+static int vreadrid(struct venus_info *v_info,unsigned short rid,unsigned char *ridp,unsigned ridsz){
   Cmd            cmd;
   Resp           rsp;
   int            status;
@@ -962,8 +962,14 @@
     return rsp.rsp0;  /* return error qualifier */
 
   if(!status){
+    unsigned len = ridsz;
     ridlen = VADDR(unsigned short,v_info->ConfigDesc);
-    memcpy((char *)ridp,(char *)v_info->ConfigDesc.VirtualHostAddress,*ridlen);
+    if (*ridlen <= len)
+      len = *ridlen;
+    else
+      printk(KERN_INFO "vreadrid: rid=%04x ridlen=%d ridsz=%d\n",
+	     rid, *ridlen, ridsz);
+    memcpy((char *)ridp,(char *)v_info->ConfigDesc.VirtualHostAddress,len);
   }
   return status;
 }
@@ -1509,8 +1515,8 @@
   pci_set_master (v_info->pcip); /* Gets called twice no harm */
 
   cfg = (ConfigRid *)iobuf;
-  vreadrid((struct venus_info *)dev->priv,RID_CAPABILITIES,(char *)&xcaps);
-  vreadrid((struct venus_info *)dev->priv,RID_CONFIG,iobuf);
+  vreadrid((struct venus_info *)dev->priv,RID_CAPABILITIES,(char *)&xcaps,sizeof(xcaps));
+  vreadrid((struct venus_info *)dev->priv,RID_CONFIG,iobuf,sizeof(iobuf));
 
   /*
    * Find out if an extended capability rid was returned
@@ -1536,7 +1542,7 @@
   for(i=0;i!=6;i++){
     dev->dev_addr[i] = cfg->macAddr[i];
   }
-  printk( KERN_INFO "MPI350 start: MAC  %x:%x:%x:%x:%x:%x\n",
+  printk( KERN_INFO "MPI350 start: MAC  %02x:%02x:%02x:%02x:%02x:%02x\n",
 	  dev->dev_addr[0],dev->dev_addr[1],dev->dev_addr[2],
 	  dev->dev_addr[3],dev->dev_addr[4],dev->dev_addr[5]); 
 
@@ -1735,7 +1741,7 @@
       break;
     }
 
-  vreadrid((struct venus_info *)dev->priv,ridcode,iobuf);
+  vreadrid((struct venus_info *)dev->priv,ridcode,iobuf,sizeof(iobuf));
   
   if (copy_to_user(comp->data, iobuf, MIN (comp->len, sizeof(iobuf))))
     return -EFAULT;
@@ -1799,7 +1805,7 @@
     case AIROPSTCLR:
       ridcode = RID_STATSDELTACLEAR;
       memset((char *)&v_info->micstats,0,sizeof(v_info->micstats)); /*Clear micstats */
-      vreadrid((struct venus_info *)dev->priv,ridcode,iobuf);
+      vreadrid((struct venus_info *)dev->priv,ridcode,iobuf,sizeof(iobuf));
       
       if (copy_to_user(comp->data,blargo,MIN(comp->len,sizeof(blargo))))
 	return -EFAULT;

Re: Cisco Aironet mini-PCI wireless card (MPI-350) [Was: Re: Intel PRO/Wireless 2100 vs. Broadcom BCM9430x]

[Jan Mynarik]

Many thanks,

the patch worked well in the meaning of possible module insertion. But I
wasn't able to configure the card with ACU well.

With older firmware it's possible to insert module and to configure it
with ACU, but I'm not able to configure the card well. The whole
password menu produces segmentation fault :-))

Is there any other way how to configure this card? Unfortunately it
doesn't support wireless extensions.

Jan Mynarik

On Thu, 2003-06-12 at 19:46, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-06-12 at 10:20, Jan Mynarik wrote:
> > Cisco's linux support is great until you have IBM's ThinkPad R40. With
> > this notebook, their newest Linux driver (version 2.0, older ones do not
> > support my card) module (mpi350.o) can't be inserted to kernel (oops and
> > module remains 'initializing' forever). Module is compiled successfully
> > against both 2.4.20 and 2.4.21-rc7 kernels.
> > 
> > I'm just fighting their bureaucracy (in support) and trying to reach
> > someone who actually wrote the driver (module says Roland Wilcher). I
> > want to help him with testing and provide him with all possible
> > information.
> 
> Downgrade your firmware.  On the Cisco site, there's a Linux driver
> paired with a particular firmware version.  Use it: there's a bug in the
> kernel driver in which it reads stuff out of the card's RIDs into a
> local structure, but using the card's RID size.  The newer firmware has
> increased the structure sizes for some RIDs, which overruns the stack
> and crashes.
> 
> I have attached a patch for the driver to fix the crash, but I'm not
> confident the card works well without the correct firmware.
> 
> 	J
-- 
Jan Mynarik <mynarikj@phoenix.inf.upol.cz>

Re: Cisco Aironet mini-PCI wireless card (MPI-350) [Was: Re: Intel PRO/Wireless 2100 vs. Broadcom BCM9430x]

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge]

On Fri, 2003-06-13 at 03:58, Jan Mynarik wrote:
> the patch worked well in the meaning of possible module insertion. But I
> wasn't able to configure the card with ACU well.
> 
> With older firmware it's possible to insert module and to configure it
> with ACU, but I'm not able to configure the card well. The whole
> password menu produces segmentation fault :-))
> 
> Is there any other way how to configure this card? Unfortunately it
> doesn't support wireless extensions.

I used ACU/bcard, but it was fairly fiddly.  I kept finding that
changing a setting would make the card go into a strange state which was
unrecoverable, even by unloading/reloading the module.  Only rebooting
would fix it.  Eventually I managed to get everything configured, and I
just get modprobe to run bcard after loading the module to configure the
card.  This seems to work reliably so long as I avoid doing any other
settings with acu (

I've been doing some work to extend airo.c to support the 350, based on
Ben Reed's start.  Unfortunately the card gets into state just keeps
misbehaving and reports errors, but without any documentation its hard
to work out what's going wrong.  I'm hoping Cisco will see fit to
release some documentation (or at least a new driver) - particularly
since it seems the number of mpi350 Linux users is increasing, driven
into Cisco's arm by Intel and Broadcom's complete documentation void.

	J

Re: Intel PRO/Wireless 2100 vs. Broadcom BCM9430x

[Anders Karlsson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 525 bytes --]

On Thu, 2003-06-12 at 16:16, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> most laptop vendors that provide multiple wireless options also support 
> the cisco aironet minipci card, you can allways vote with your wallet if 
> you think linux support for wireless chipsets is valuable.

And that is if your laptop will allow such a card to be plugged in and
used of course. Thinkpads with the tcpa chip in them might not allow
such a card, and consequently you can not vote with your wallet unless
you do not buy that laptop at all.

/A


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: Intel PRO/Wireless 2100 vs. Broadcom BCM9430x

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge]

On Thu, 2003-06-12 at 13:37, Anders Karlsson wrote:
> And that is if your laptop will allow such a card to be plugged in and
> used of course. Thinkpads with the tcpa chip in them might not allow
> such a card,

Nothing to do with TCPA: my laptop doesn't have one, and it objects to
"foreign" wireless cards.  Plain old BIOS is enough.

Fortunately IBM support the Cisco Airo 350 mini-pci card, and supply a
(GPLed) driver.  It isn't the greatest driver (no 2.5 port, seems flakey
when doing anything with the admin tool, no wireless extension support),
but it works enough to make wireless useful.

	J

Re: Intel PRO/Wireless 2100 vs. Broadcom BCM9430x

[Anders Karlsson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 716 bytes --]

On Thu, 2003-06-12 at 22:17, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-06-12 at 13:37, Anders Karlsson wrote:
> > And that is if your laptop will allow such a card to be plugged in and
> > used of course. Thinkpads with the tcpa chip in them might not allow
> > such a card,
> 
> Nothing to do with TCPA: my laptop doesn't have one, and it objects to
> "foreign" wireless cards.  Plain old BIOS is enough.

I based my statement on a discussion from about a week ago on the list
and that seemed to indicate that the IBM Thinkpads had a 'white-list'
of sorts to allow only some specific mini-PCI cards. IIRC it was the
T40, R40 and X31 that was affected.

Apologies if my statement was incorrect.

/A

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: Intel PRO/Wireless 2100 vs. Broadcom BCM9430x

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge]

On Thu, 2003-06-12 at 14:52, Anders Karlsson wrote:
> I based my statement on a discussion from about a week ago on the list
> and that seemed to indicate that the IBM Thinkpads had a 'white-list'
> of sorts to allow only some specific mini-PCI cards. IIRC it was the
> T40, R40 and X31 that was affected.
> 
> Apologies if my statement was incorrect.

No, you're right, its just that it isn't TCPA which does the checking;
it's the plain old BIOS.  In other words, IBM are being painful and
irritating, but at least they're not being sinister, painful and
irritating.

	J

Re: Intel PRO/Wireless 2100 vs. Broadcom BCM9430x

[Joel Jaeggli]

You can buy the cisco card from ibm and have installed when the thing 
ships  if you so desire.

joelja

On 12 Jun 2003, Anders Karlsson wrote:

> On Thu, 2003-06-12 at 16:16, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> > most laptop vendors that provide multiple wireless options also support 
> > the cisco aironet minipci card, you can allways vote with your wallet if 
> > you think linux support for wireless chipsets is valuable.
> 
> And that is if your laptop will allow such a card to be plugged in and
> used of course. Thinkpads with the tcpa chip in them might not allow
> such a card, and consequently you can not vote with your wallet unless
> you do not buy that laptop at all.
> 
> /A
> 
> 

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Joel Jaeggli	      Academic User Services   joelja@darkwing.uoregon.edu    
--    PGP Key Fingerprint: 1DE9 8FCA 51FB 4195 B42A 9C32 A30D 121E      --
  In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last
  resort of the scoundrel.  With all due respect to an enlightened but
  inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first.
	   	            -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"

Re: Intel PRO/Wireless 2100 vs. Broadcom BCM9430x

[Davide Libenzi]

On Thu, 12 Jun 2003, Marc Sowen wrote:

> Hi everybody,
>
> I hope this is not too off-topic, but the fact is that neither the Intel
> PRO/Wireless 2100 (Centrino) chipset nor the Broadcom BCM9430x (e.g.
> Dell Truemobile 1180/1300/1400) chipset is currently supported in Linux
> due to FCC regulation problems.
>
> Anyhow, I plan to get a new Notebook within the next 2 or 3 weeks and I
> need to decide, whether to go for the Intel PRO/Wireless 2100 or the
> Broadcom BCM9430x chipset. I know it's hard to say, but what do you
> think, which company (Intel or Broadcom) is more likely to release the
> necessary documents and/or drivers for their chipsets? Both companys
> seem to ignore all inquiries concerning Linux support at the moment.

I used to win the "Dumb context 2003" by buying a laptop w/out checking
the hw compatibility list. It was first sight love :) Now after a series
of custom patches (SiS chipset, pcmcia irq selection, local apic,...)
everything is working fine but the Broadcom integrated WLAN. I suggest you
to go with a machine w/out the integrated WLAN and then buy a supported
pcmcia card (orinoco prismII works great on my machine). To understand who
between Intel and Broadcom will first release specs, take a look at their
web sites for documentation/specs. The answer will become pretty easy.



- Davide

Re: Intel PRO/Wireless 2100 vs. Broadcom BCM9430x

[Disconnect]

On Thu, 2003-06-12 at 13:08, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2003, Marc Sowen wrote:
> > Hi everybody,
> >
> > I hope this is not too off-topic, but the fact is that neither the Intel
> > PRO/Wireless 2100 (Centrino) chipset nor the Broadcom BCM9430x (e.g.
> > Dell Truemobile 1180/1300/1400) chipset is currently supported in Linux
> > due to FCC regulation problems.
> >
> > Anyhow, I plan to get a new Notebook within the next 2 or 3 weeks and I
> > need to decide, whether to go for the Intel PRO/Wireless 2100 or the
> > Broadcom BCM9430x chipset. I know it's hard to say, but what do you
> > think, which company (Intel or Broadcom) is more likely to release the
> > necessary documents and/or drivers for their chipsets? Both companys
> > seem to ignore all inquiries concerning Linux support at the moment.
> 
> I used to win the "Dumb context 2003" by buying a laptop w/out checking
> the hw compatibility list. It was first sight love :) Now after a series
> of custom patches (SiS chipset, pcmcia irq selection, local apic,...)
> everything is working fine but the Broadcom integrated WLAN. I suggest you
> to go with a machine w/out the integrated WLAN and then buy a supported
> pcmcia card (orinoco prismII works great on my machine). To understand who
> between Intel and Broadcom will first release specs, take a look at their
> web sites for documentation/specs. The answer will become pretty easy.

Find out which one is in that linksys possible-gpl-violation and use
that one.  (I think its broadcom.) 

FWIW I got my laptop with the broadcom (dell truemobile) intentionally,
as it is useful under XP and might eventually work under Linux.  (Then I
bought the older truemobile, the 1150 I think, for $80 or so. Swapped
right in, leaving the pcmcia slot for my ipaq's hdd, etc.  Even the
Fn-wireless button correctly turns the radio on/off, although Linux has
no way to detect it except loss of signal.)

-- 
Disconnect <lkml@sigkill.net>

Re: Intel PRO/Wireless 2100 vs. Broadcom BCM9430x

[Martin List-Petersen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1757 bytes --]

On Thu, 2003-06-12 at 17:15, Marc Sowen wrote:
> Hi everybody,
> 
> I hope this is not too off-topic, but the fact is that neither the Intel
> PRO/Wireless 2100 (Centrino) chipset nor the Broadcom BCM9430x (e.g.
> Dell Truemobile 1180/1300/1400) chipset is currently supported in Linux
> due to FCC regulation problems.
> 
> Anyhow, I plan to get a new Notebook within the next 2 or 3 weeks and I
> need to decide, whether to go for the Intel PRO/Wireless 2100 or the
> Broadcom BCM9430x chipset. I know it's hard to say, but what do you
> think, which company (Intel or Broadcom) is more likely to release the
> necessary documents and/or drivers for their chipsets? Both companys
> seem to ignore all inquiries concerning Linux support at the moment.

I think the chances are even. Buy were you get best value for money. I
bought the TM1400 and swapped it for now with a TM1150 sparepart (it's
not quite expensive). 

Also a Orinico based PC-card is available for down to 50 EUR out there.
That would work until a driver is available.

Regards,
Martin List-Petersen
martin at list-petersen dot dk
--
A programmer is a person who passes as an exacting expert on the basis of
being able to turn out, after innumerable punching, an infinite series of
incomprehensible answers calculated with micrometric precisions from vague
assumptions based on debatable figures taken from inconclusive documents
and carried out on instruments of problematical accuracy by persons of
dubious reliability and questionable mentality for the avowed purpose of
annoying and confounding a hopelessly defenseless department that was
unfortunate enough to ask for the information in the first place.
                -- IEEE Grid newsmagazine


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: Intel PRO/Wireless 2100 vs. Broadcom BCM9430x

[Anders Karlsson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1200 bytes --]

On Thu, 2003-06-12 at 16:15, Marc Sowen wrote:
> Hi everybody,

Hullo,

> I hope this is not too off-topic, but the fact is that neither the Intel
> PRO/Wireless 2100 (Centrino) chipset nor the Broadcom BCM9430x (e.g.
> Dell Truemobile 1180/1300/1400) chipset is currently supported in Linux
> due to FCC regulation problems.

I have pointed out to Intel that 802.11b is _not_ subject to FCC
regulation problems and I hope they will release a driver for the
802.11b Intel/PRO 2100 mini-PCI cards sometime in the (near?) future. It
would be a sensible thing to do IMHO.

> Anyhow, I plan to get a new Notebook within the next 2 or 3 weeks and I
> need to decide, whether to go for the Intel PRO/Wireless 2100 or the
> Broadcom BCM9430x chipset. I know it's hard to say, but what do you
> think, which company (Intel or Broadcom) is more likely to release the
> necessary documents and/or drivers for their chipsets? Both companys
> seem to ignore all inquiries concerning Linux support at the moment.

How long is a piece of string? I get replies from Intel when I write to
them, but it is all a bit vague. They will not commit to anything, which
is is frustrating.

/A



[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]