10 Nov 2005 01:42
at76c503a and Kernel 2.6.14
Christoph Biedl <cbiedl <at> gmx.de>
2005-11-10 00:42:24 GMT
2005-11-10 00:42:24 GMT
Hm,
did I miss an announcement? at76c503a does not build against 2.6.14 due
to minor changes in a) the usb stack (URB_ASYNC_UNLINK is now obsolete
as far as I can see) and b) the wireless extensions (spy_offset is
gone). The patch attached "works-for-me" by a) defining that constant
to 0 and b) stealing the changes of wl3501_cs.c.
However I'd be glad if anybody with more insight into the driver could
take a look into this.
Christoph
--- drivers/net/wireless/at76c503/at76c503.c 2005-08-29 21:43:05.000000000 +0200 +++ drivers/net/wireless/at76c503/at76c503.c 2005-11-10 00:46:47.000000000 +0100 <at> <at> -205,7 +205,7 <at> <at> #endif #ifndef USB_ASYNC_UNLINK -#define USB_ASYNC_UNLINK URB_ASYNC_UNLINK +#define USB_ASYNC_UNLINK 0 #endif #ifndef FILL_BULK_URB <at> <at> -6699,10 +6699,7 <at> <at> .standard = (iw_handler *) at76c503_handlers, .private = (iw_handler *) at76c503_priv_handlers, .private_args = (struct iw_priv_args *) at76c503_priv_args, -#if WIRELESS_EXT > 15(Continue reading)
For the records, I'm using an USB adapter:
| ID 069a:0321 Askey Computer Corp. Dynalink WLL013 / Compex WLU11A 802.11b Adapter
which is labeled as "Siemens Gigaset USB Adapter 11".
> Does this driver need the "generic 802.11 network stack" thingy for
> Linux kernel 2.6.14?
No, as at76c503a was written before that stuff. I've just tested it to
be on the safe side: "generic 802.11 network stack" disabled and
re-built the kernel, works. However it seems to be a good idea to merge
the driver into that. How are the chances to get this driver into the
main stream kernel anyway?
And of course my patch is nothing but a quick hack, it should take care
of the kernel version to have no change when building against 2.6.13.x
and earlier.
Christoph
You're using WEP? I don't - I do not trust WEP and use a tunnel in
software, actually openvpn.
> Out of curiosity, why did your patch patch against a kernel tree? Did you use
> that kernel_patch.sh script?
I did the "make kernel_patch" that's included in the at76c503a source
since I prefer to have additional modules in my local kernel tree. The
patch indeed was against that one.
> > How are the chances to get this driver into the
> > main stream kernel anyway?
> I think that we would need a permanent maintainer to always make sure that our
> USB driver compiles with the latest kernel.
Hm, is this project abandoned? I noticed that
RSS Feed