On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Norbert Preining [off-list ref] wrote:

On Do, 28 Jun 2012, Johannes Berg wrote:

quoted

Somehow your mail didn't make it to the lists, not sure why.

Hmm, yeah, some of the emails were privte exchange with
Venkataraman and Lin.

quoted

Fun. I don't actually see how this can possibly happen though?!

Hmm, actually I think I have seen similar things quite regularly,
and reported them also.

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

  [ 9457.176828] iwlwifi 0000:06:00.0: ACTIVATE a non DRIVER active
station id 0 addr 00:24:c4:ab:bd:e0

These messages now appear only now and then.

I fixed those recently.

Good.

Just a report to say that I still see those in 3.5.0-rc5.

I recently moved from a Dell Latitude 6400, with a bcm4322 chip managed
 by the Broadcom-STA out-of-tree driver (wl module) to the new Latitude 6420,
 which has this as per lspci:

02:00.0 Network controller: Intel Corporation Centrino Advanced-N 6205 (rev 34)

 and I have two issues compared to the bcm4322; one is the above message,
 which appears when the driver can't associate to my D-Link DSL2740B router;
 telnetting into the router and bouncing its AP component via wlctl is enough
 to allow the laptop to connect again.
At the same time, my wife's old 32-bit Dell D610 with an ipw2200 connects just
 fine to the DSL-2740B.


The second issue is that the wifi speed is much lower with the new 6420 under
 iwlwifi - topping out at under 3MB/s compared with peaks of 10MB/s with the
 bcm4322's wl driver, which hardly ever went under 6MB/s.

iwconfig wlan0 reports fluctuating bitrates of 18/24/36 Mb/s whereas I could see
 very easily 130Mb/s with the wl driver. Maybe something is also due to the fact
 that the DSL-2740B has a draft-N implementation and its Broadcom chip has
 better feelings with the laptop's Broadcom wl than the iwlwifi.


I'm available for more detailed reporting and testing.

Thanks,

quoted

You seem to be on 3.5.0-rc now, is that really no different from 3.4?

The feeling is that it is definitely better.

I can actually work now wirelessly, and in case of hangs an rfkill block
rfkill unblock practically always, and mostly is not needed.

So yes, it is better, definitely.

I think till 3.4 I had to use the cable quite regularly.

Best wishes

Norbert

--alessandro

"don't underestimate the things that I will do"

 (Adele, "Rolling In The Deep")