Jar jar at
Sun Jan 1 17:29:23 EST 2006

Pavel Roskin wrote:

> OK, that's p10003c0.hex S1010506.HEX
> p10003c0.hex doesn't include the modem-firmware records, and all s1* firmwares I
> have use variant 1, not 0.  It would be interesting to know if the original
> secondary firmware was s10008c0.hex or something else, but this information is
> lost.

OK. If I remember correctly this card (Compaq wl200) comes originally 
with 0.7.6 firmware. Compaq offers the fw 0.80 update, I flashed it with 
compaq tool. Then to the 0.8.3 version, I used some SMC windows flashing 
binary package. From 0.8.3 to 1.3.4 the Intersil windows flash binary 
was used. 1.3.4-->1.4.9-->1.5.6 I have used both Intersil windows flash 
binary and prism_srec tools.

> Why "falsely"?  You make it sound like prism2_srec is doing something definitely
> wrong, but I think it acts according to the specification.
> Let's see
> says variant 0 should not be used in production, so you have a
> preliminary version of the hardware, and its compatibility with the production
> firmware is not guaranteed.

OK. I didn't know that my card was some kind of prototype? How they can 
even sell those?  I didn't know that the prism_srec incompatibility 
message was caused by this.

> The same section says that the compatibility ranges are defined for certain
> variants.  I assume that it means that in case of mismatching variants the
> compatibility ranges should not be compared, and firmware download should not
> be performed.


> Again, you are assuming that prism2_srec is wrong because the firmware works on
> your hardware.  However, there is no definite way to know that all features are
> working correctly.

Yes you are right.

> Working with preliminary hardware assumes that you take some risks, including
> risk of incompatibility with production firmware.  prism2_srec refuses to take
> that risk without you realizing it.

How can an end user know that his hardware is "preliminary hardware" ?

> Just because a closed source tool does it, it doesn't mean it's the right thing
> to do.  I, for one, cannot examine the sources of that software to find the
> reasons why it works like this.
> Maybe it has a database of the cards with variant 0 hardware that are known to
> be compatible with production firmware.  Perhaps prism2_srec could do it as
> well.

Yes, who knows. I am a friend of OpenSource too.

> I don't think many people are using those cards with Host AP.

Why? Compaq wl200 is the same as Samsung swl200p. They are one of the 
first prism2 based cards in the market. I have run this card also with 
Samsung's Linux diver (swld11_cs-1.22.tar.gz), and it works well too. 
Today it is quite rare I guess. These cards are working 100% well (for 
me) with hostap (ad-hoc, managed and ap) for three years now 24h/365d.

> OK, good to know.  I hope my patch with be applied to the kernel.

Yes absolutely ! I have also prism2.5 cards and prism2_srec hasn't ever 
complained with them.

Best Regards, Jar

More information about the HostAP mailing list