Return-path: Received: from mail-vw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.212.46]:34295 "EHLO mail-vw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750796Ab1LIQom (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Dec 2011 11:44:42 -0500 Received: by vbbfc26 with SMTP id fc26so2438265vbb.19 for ; Fri, 09 Dec 2011 08:44:41 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4EE23AF5.8000400@lwfinger.net> (sfid-20111209_174445_406532_3FD4AE54) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2011 10:44:37 -0600 From: Larry Finger MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Arend van Spriel CC: =?UTF-8?B?UmFmYcWCIE1pxYJlY2tp?= , Francesco Gringoli , b43-dev , wireless Subject: Re: Performance of BCM43224 (14e4:4353) References: <4EE15A4E.1090500@lwfinger.net> <4EE1E2AC.8030002@broadcom.com> In-Reply-To: <4EE1E2AC.8030002@broadcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 12/09/2011 04:27 AM, Arend van Spriel wrote: > > Hi Larry > > Could you perform your benchmark test on brcmsmac without the bcma > patches. It kind of surprises me that we are that far off compared to > the wl driver. I wondered about that myself. Upon investigation, my test with bcma/brcmsmac never worked. Without the patches, my netperf numbers for brcmsmac are RX 40.0 and TX 59.7 Mbps.In all cases, the reported number is the maximum of 10 tries of 3 sec each. With the patches, my dmesg contains the following: [ 908.282281] bcma: Bus registered [ 908.353242] brcmsmac bcma0:0: mfg 4bf core 812 rev 23 class 0 irq 22 [ 908.380164] ieee80211 phy0: wl0: brcms_b_attach: si_attach failed [ 908.380184] ieee80211 phy0: wl0: brcms_b_attach: failed with err 11 [ 908.380192] ieee80211 phy0: wl0: brcms_c_attach: failed with err 11 [ 908.380316] ieee80211 phy0: brcmsmac: attach() failed with code 11 [ 908.380379] brcmsmac: brcms_bcma_probe: brcms_attach failed! [ 908.381715] brcms_module_init: register returned 0 As b43 is also loaded, which may be a second problem, it is run instead of brcmsmac. Larry