From owner-freebsd-wireless@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 9 10:33:30 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: wireless@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A78D178D for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 10:33:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx.nsu.ru (mx.nsu.ru [84.237.50.39]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A8FFF6 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 10:33:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from regency.nsu.ru ([193.124.210.26]) by mx.nsu.ru with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Y9WH9-0005fK-Vg for wireless@freebsd.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2015 15:54:45 +0600 Received: from regency.nsu.ru (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by regency.nsu.ru (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id t099sm46040987 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 16:54:58 +0700 (NOVT) (envelope-from danfe@regency.nsu.ru) Received: (from danfe@localhost) by regency.nsu.ru (8.14.2/8.14.2/Submit) id t099shUR040981 for wireless@freebsd.org; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 15:54:43 +0600 (NOVT) (envelope-from danfe) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 15:54:43 +0600 From: Alexey Dokuchaev To: wireless@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Intel Pro/Wireless 2200BG iwi(4) card stopped working in 8-stable Message-ID: <20150109095443.GA32913@regency.nsu.ru> References: <20121005123832.GA64777@regency.nsu.ru> <20121005201258.GA44697@regency.nsu.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20121005201258.GA44697@regency.nsu.ru> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-KLMS-Rule-ID: 1 X-KLMS-Message-Action: clean X-KLMS-AntiSpam-Lua-Profiles: 71669 [Jan 09 2015] X-KLMS-AntiSpam-Version: 5.5.3 X-KLMS-AntiSpam-Envelope-From: danfe@regency.nsu.ru X-KLMS-AntiSpam-Rate: 0 X-KLMS-AntiSpam-Status: not_detected X-KLMS-AntiSpam-Method: none X-KLMS-AntiSpam-Moebius-Timestamps: 3303853, 3303873, 0 X-KLMS-AntiSpam-Info: LuaCore: 129 2014-12-22_16-04-37 b56dccffcb30ce2baa14823440f957219ea77da0 X-KLMS-AntiSpam-Interceptor-Info: scan successful X-KLMS-AntiPhishing: Clean, 2014/12/30 11:03:20 X-KLMS-AntiVirus: Kaspersky Security 8.0 for Linux Mail Server, version 8.0.1.705, not scanned, license restriction X-BeenThere: freebsd-wireless@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussions of 802.11 stack, tools device driver development." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 10:33:30 -0000 On Sat, Oct 06, 2012 at 03:12:58AM +0700, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 07:02:26AM -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote: > > On 5 October 2012 05:38, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > > > Since this card gave me lots of troubles over the past, any one can > > > recommend a decent mini-pci replacement? It looks like ath(4) chips > > > are currently best supported. [...] > > > > AR5416 or AR9220 will be fine. Even an AR9160 will be fine. > > OK, but shall I give predilection towards one of them, or they're all > pretty much the same? Today I've revisited this old topic and found that similar question was asked before on ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org [1]. I will quote some parts of it here (and thus answer my own question) for the sake of history. Gen 1 - AR5008: AR5416+AR5122 - 2x2 dual band, PCI AR5416+AR5133 - 3x3 dual band, PCI AR5418+AR5133 - 3x3 dual band, PCIe Gen 2 - AR9001: AR9160+AR9104 - 2x2 dual band, PCI AR9160+AR9106 - 3x3 dual band, PCI Gen 3 - AR9002: AR9220 - 2x2, dual band, PCI AR9280 - 2x2, dual band, PCIe [We know that] the AR9002 is a single chip solution, likely reducing cost, power and size. But is there any improvement to radio functionality or other features? Answer (by Luis R. Rodriguez): Having a single chip itself yields a lot more benefits than that. Since things are closer together it also means less complexity on overall programming. I recommend the single chip families, and specificaly AR9280 is a great candidate as its dual band and uses PCI-E. From a software perspective Atheros dedicates more of its own resources for testing our newer chipsets, the newer gernation 802.11n chipsets. AR9001 didn't get formal testing but the AR9002 did. Now its AR9002, in the near future it will be AR9003 and so on. ./danfe [1] http://ath9k-devel.ath9k.narkive.com/GqjxAbUB/ar-chipset-differences