[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Adding support for Atheros wireless NICs (ath5k, formerly madwifi)

The 2.6.24 kernel includes the new ath5k module which can open up a huge 
class of extra wireless support in D-I. I've taken a first look at what's 
needed to support it. Especially as I happen to own one :-)

So far it has not yet been added to kernel-wedge. Adding the module itself 
is trivial, but the driver will fail to initialize correctly unless the 
following crypto modules are also available: arc4, ecb; ecb depends on 

These could of course be added to crypto-modules and nic-wireless-modules 
made dependent on that, but that would mean including ~140kB in crypto 
modules in netboot initrds, while the actually needed modules are only 
~15kB in total.

So, instead I suggest we create crypto-core-modules to contain these and 
have both crypto-modules and nic-wireless-modules depend on that. Problem 
with that is that arc4 and ecb are not actually very "core"...

Alternative could be to have just blkcipher (~ 8kB) in crypto-core-modules 
and then have just add arc4 and ecb to nic-wireless-modules as these don't 
seem to be needed for other things. However this would not work in the long 
run if there are other wireless drivers/implementations that require other 
crypto modules that are also used for encrypted file systems.

After solving that issue, I got the following for NIC selection:
eth0: Intel Pro/100 Ethernet Controller
wmaster: Atheros AR5212/AR5213 Multiprotocol MAC/baseband processor
wlan0: Atheros AR5212/AR5213 Multiprotocol MAC/baseband processor (wireless)

The first is my wired interface.
AFAICT the second could/should be suppressed by netcfg.
The third is the actual wireless NIC. I'm used to it being called ath0 (as 
that's what the madwifi driver used), but wlan0 does seem to be the correct 
new name.

I could not test further as I don't have a wireless router myself.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: