Message-ID: <101533.67222.qm@web55301.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 08:56:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: X Xiao <austinxxh-linux@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: austinxxh-linux@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Best (ath9k) miniPCI card for testing overall AP functionality
To: "Philip A. Prindeville" <philipp_subx@redfish-solutions.com>,
	Pavel Roskin <proski@gnu.org>
Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <1249555578.24439.38.camel@ct>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org

I'm using Ubiquiti SR71-A and it worked fine as an AP.

xxiao

--- On Thu, 8/6/09, Pavel Roskin <proski@gnu.org> wrote:

> From: Pavel Roskin <proski@gnu.org>
> Subject: Re: Best (ath9k) miniPCI card for testing overall AP functionality
> To: "Philip A. Prindeville" <philipp_subx@redfish-solutions.com>
> Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
> Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 5:46 AM
> On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 15:36 -0700,
> Philip A. Prindeville wrote:
> > I'm trying to get Astlinux ready for the 0.7 release,
> but we've been
> > hamstrung in testing because of issues with the ath5k
> drivers on our
> > test platform...? so I've been considering
> getting different hardware
> > for testing.? We've not been able to shake-down
> our transition from
> > wireless-tools to iw, or from hostapd 0.6.8 to 0.6.9.
> > 
> > I'm guessing that the ath9k tends to be further along
> in functionality,
> > and more stable, than the ath5k?
> 
> I think it's true for AP functionality.? In any case,
> there is not much
> code shared between ath5k and ath9k, so if you have a
> driver specific
> problem with ath5k, ath9k is unlikely to have the same
> problem.
> 
> > If that's the case, one of our partners that gives
> discounted pricing on
> > F/OSS development hardware has the following NICs:
> > 
> > Ubiquiti SR71-A? = Atheros AR9160 with DFS
> SUPPORT
> > Ubiquiti SR71-12 = Atheros AR9220 with DFS SUPPORT
> > Ubiquiti SR71-15 = Atheros AR9220 with DFS SUPPORT
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I'm looking for b/g or n hardware, and the more power,
> the better.
> > 
> > The 'A' doesn't seem to work with x86 based systems,
> as far as I can tell.
> 
> I have an AR9160 based miniPCI card, and it's working fine
> on a x86_64
> based system.? I don't think I tested it with a 32-bit
> kernel, but I
> don't expect any problems.
> 
> I think the Ubiquiti page for the card would have a warning
> it it was
> true, but I don't see any warning here:
> http://www.ubnt.com/products/sr71a.php
> 
> By the way, AR9160 is supported by MadWifi, unlike
> AR9280.? MadWifi is
> not actively developed, but if you need another reference
> point, you'll
> have it.
> 
> > The '12' is b/g/n, 27dBm and uses MMCX connectors, and
> is type III-A format.
> > 
> > The '15' is a/n only, also 27dBm and uses MMCX
> connectors... also type
> > III-A format.
> > 
> > I'm leaning towards a '12', but they're not cheap.
> > 
> > According to:
> > 
> > http://linuxwireless.org/en/users/Drivers/ath9k
> > 
> > and:
> > 
> > http://linuxwireless.org/en/users/Drivers/ath9k/products/external
> > 
> > none of the above cards are supported...? but
> that assumes that the Wiki
> > is up to date.
> 
> I don't thing the term "up to date" really could apply
> here.? It would
> apply it there was a definite list and it was easy to
> update the wiki
> from it.
> 
> In fact, the list is only updated when somebody has such
> device and
> makes sure that it works.? As you said, Ubiquiti card
> are not cheap.
> 
> >???Also the AR9220 isn't shown on the
> list of supported
> > chipsets.
> 
> The Atheros people here should know better, but I think
> either AR9220
> implies AR9280 or vice versa.
> 
> MikroTik RouterBoard R52N has a chip marked AR9220, yet we
> know that
> it's supported.
> 
> > Can anyone confirm or deny that it's unsupported?
> 
> I'm quite sure that all those cards are supported, but I
> cannot
> guarantee anything.
> 
> -- 
> Regards,
> Pavel Roskin
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
> linux-wireless" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at? http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>