Return-path: Received: from p15195424.pureserver.info ([82.165.34.74]:46242 "EHLO p15195424.pureserver.info" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757987Ab3IMN2m (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Sep 2013 09:28:42 -0400 Message-ID: <523312D0.3020001@ilande.co.uk> (sfid-20130913_153254_970901_AE23167C) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 14:27:44 +0100 From: Mark Cave-Ayland MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Larry Finger CC: linux-wireless References: <5232DAF0.6040907@ilande.co.uk> <52330CB4.7020902@ilande.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <52330CB4.7020902@ilande.co.uk> Subject: Re: rtl8192cu: testing with EdiMax USB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 13/09/13 14:01, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote: >> I spent a bit more time tinkering further with debug=0x5, forgetting >> that I had left your last diagnostic patch applied. Based upon when the >> beacon output disappears in the logs (after updating the power >> registers), it does seem likely that is a power-related problem. > > FWIW I just tried a quick test where I commented out the entire > rtl92c_dm_txpower_tracking_callback_thermalmeter() function to make it a > nop, and that didn't seem to make any difference... Aha! The following diff to remove the call to rtl92c_dm_diginit() keeps me associated to the AP: diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/rtlwifi/rtl8192c/dm_common.c b/drivers/net/wireless/rtlwifi/rtl8192c/dm_common.c index d2d57a2..c18362d 100644 --- a/drivers/net/wireless/rtlwifi/rtl8192c/dm_common.c +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/rtlwifi/rtl8192c/dm_common.c @@ -1275,7 +1275,7 @@ void rtl92c_dm_init(struct ieee80211_hw *hw) struct rtl_priv *rtlpriv = rtl_priv(hw); rtlpriv->dm.dm_type = DM_TYPE_BYDRIVER; - rtl92c_dm_diginit(hw); + //rtl92c_dm_diginit(hw); rtl92c_dm_init_dynamic_txpower(hw); rtl92c_dm_init_edca_turbo(hw); rtl92c_dm_init_rate_adaptive_mask(hw); However, dhclient still takes a very long time get an IP address and the connection seems extremely lossy, much like it was when I could get a connection before. Perhaps there are two different bugs here, one for the association and one for the data loss? ATB, Mark.