Bug 67114

Summary: extra, old drivers for cisco aironet cards
Product: [Retired] Red Hat Linux Reporter: cootetim <tim>
Component: kernelAssignee: Arjan van de Ven <arjanv>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact: Brian Brock <bbrock>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: 7.3   
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2003-06-07 18:47:54 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description cootetim 2002-06-20 09:11:54 UTC
From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.01; Windows NT 5.0)

Description of problem:
there's the kernel.org driver (drivers/net/wireless/airo.c) and there's what 
the authors seem to think is an old version (drivers/net/pcmcia/airo.c). Both 
are visible at kernel builds and neither seems to support newer Cisco firmware 
and so creates extra log entries ("got weird status 1000"). This may be why 
some of the wireless utilities don't work with these cards (iwconfig core dumps 
after the query). I think that the worse one is actually newer than 
the 'better' one - the real one comes from sourceforge.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):


How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1.look in the kernel source
2.compare the airo.c's
3.both from common platform, but neither current. EV_MIC status bit was added 
to airo.c in Jan 02 at Sourceforge and added to kernel patch after 2.4.18-4 
release in 25/2. 
	

Actual Results:  two places to find aironet drivers in source tree and in make 
xconfig

Expected Results:  one place for aironet drivers, and capable of supporting 
current firmware

Additional info:

I'm not convinced that this whole area of the kernel is working properly as I 
cannot configure the wlan card, but I don't yet have firm enough info to post a 
bug report.

This bug could be a sign of a deeper QA issue?

Comment 1 Arjan van de Ven 2003-06-07 18:47:54 UTC
this got fixed in an erratum