On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 09:32:49AM +, Simon Kelley wrote:
> That may be rather over-optimistic: the Atmel hardware dosen't even
> produce consistent results over different chip revs.
But each chip on its own is fairly consistent, which is all that
random users care about. "More bars mean bet
Olivier Blin wrote:
The main problems we got in the past year is the lack of a standard
and reliable signal level report, but it will probably get solved when
all drivers are unified to use the same wireless stack.
That may be rather over-optimistic: the Atmel hardware dosen't even
produce co
Hi,
Jean Tourrilhes wrote:
> All AP changes are sent as wireless events (for drivers that
> implement iwevent), so you can use that to track APs. Kernel has no
> way to know at which rate you want to check signal strenght, and for
> some card this involve interrogating the card (i.e. I/O ove
On Tuesday 17 January 2006 12:37, Jirka Bohac wrote:
> At the present time, the ieee80211 stack is used by ipw2x00
> (heavily) and hostap (a little bit). Other mainline drivers only use
> headers (mainly constants).
>
> If it shows that the DeviceScape stack is more mature and
> appropriate (which
Am Dienstag 17 Januar 2006 19:37 schrieb Jirka Bohac:
> - DeviceScape can be there so it can be polished and new drivers can
> start using it.
> - ieee80211 could be there with a big fat warning that it will go
> away soon, just to allow ipw2x00 to work while DeviceScape and
> the ipw2x00 po
Jean Tourrilhes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Please consider this page about drakroam and net_applet as well:
>> http://qa.mandriva.com/twiki/bin/view/Main/EasyWifi
>
> NetApplet was already on my page, but thanks to you I've
> checked it and it's now 404. Well, assuming your netapplet is
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 08:23:50PM +0100, Olivier Blin wrote:
>
> And most of the time, userland has to poll for scan results or
> association status, netlink notifications would help.
> For example, it would be a lot easier for ifplugd to listen on a
> netlink, instead of polling for current AP a
Jean Tourrilhes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 02:51:14PM +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
>> On Saturday 14 January 2006 00:03, you wrote:
>> > As an aside to this whole thing, I know we're talking about *kernel*
>> > wireless
>> > but it's worthless to most people without go
Hi,
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 05:03:28PM -0600, Chase Venters wrote:
> On Friday 13 January 2006 15:32, John W. Linville wrote:
> > What about the suggestion of having both stacks in the kernel at once?
> > I'm not very excited about two in-kernel stacks. Still, consolidating
> > wireless drivers d
On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 02:51:14PM +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Saturday 14 January 2006 00:03, you wrote:
> > As an aside to this whole thing, I know we're talking about *kernel*
> > wireless
> > but it's worthless to most people without good userland support as well.
> > Anyone have any t
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 15:13:39 +0100 (CET), Ulrich Kunitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > [...] Register accesses in USB devices should be
> > able to sleep. However the 80211 stacks I've seen so far have a
> > fixed set of capabilities and do also ass
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 15:13:39 +0100 (CET), Ulrich Kunitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> [...] Register accesses in USB devices should be
> able to sleep. However the 80211 stacks I've seen so far have a
> fixed set of capabilities and do also assume, that at the driver
> layer everything can be done
On Sat, 2006-01-14 at 10:46 +, Simon Kelley wrote:
> Chase Venters wrote:
>
> > As an aside to this whole thing, I know we're talking about *kernel*
> > wireless
> > but it's worthless to most people without good userland support as well.
> > Anyone have any thoughts and feelings on what th
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, John W. Linville wrote:
> Can the in-kernel stack be saved? With the addition of softmac?
> Is it possible to extend softmac to support virtual wlan devices?
> If not, how do we proceed?
I don't think, that we can continue with the current model of the
stacks. There appears
On Saturday 14 January 2006 00:03, you wrote:
> As an aside to this whole thing, I know we're talking about *kernel* wireless
> but it's worthless to most people without good userland support as well.
> Anyone have any thoughts and feelings on what things look like on the
> desktop? I think if w
Chase Venters wrote:
As an aside to this whole thing, I know we're talking about *kernel* wireless
but it's worthless to most people without good userland support as well.
Anyone have any thoughts and feelings on what things look like on the
desktop? I think if we work closely with some deskto
On Friday 13 January 2006 15:32, John W. Linville wrote:
> Do we need to have both wireless-stable and wireless-devel kernels?
> What about the suggestion of having both stacks in the kernel at once?
> I'm not very excited about two in-kernel stacks. Still, consolidating
> wireless drivers down to
On Fri, 2006-01-13 at 17:22 -0500, John W. Linville wrote:
> Can the in-kernel stack be saved? With the addition of softmac?
> Is it possible to extend softmac to support virtual wlan devices?
> If not, how do we proceed?
Well, softmac doesn't really have too many issues [that make it
incompatib
Stack
=
Is the in-kernel stack up-to-date w/ SourceForge? No. Why not?
Can this development be brought into wireless development kernels?
Can the in-kernel stack be saved? With the addition of softmac?
Is it possible to extend softmac to support virtual wlan devices?
If not, how do we proc
19 matches
Mail list logo
