| iPaq 200 Series (iPAQ 210) The iPaq 210 is a powerful Windows Mobile 6 Pocket PC designed for business. |
|
04-13-08, 04:51 AM
|
#1 (permalink)
|
|
Aximsite Minor League
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 135
Thanked 12 Times in 7 Posts
|
Another bug in the 210, Wi-Fi driver?
There is yet another bug in the Wi-Fi driver of the 210 that prevents it from reporting Wi-Fi channels correctly, instead of a channel "858512" is reported. I find it interesting how little the software was tested by HP.
|
|
|
|
04-13-08, 10:30 AM
|
#2 (permalink)
|
|
Aximsite Hall of Fame
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 7,876
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
|
My WiFi worked perfectly well yesterday in Panera's restaurant. It also works well at home. I do have to confess I've never seen what you are reporting. could it be something unique to you?
|
|
|
|
04-18-08, 06:10 PM
|
#3 (permalink)
|
|
Aximsite Prospect
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 7
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
WiFi works correctly for general network access. It is when using WiFi scanners like WiFiFoFum or PeekPocket that the channel is misreported.
David, what scanner were you using? My brand new iPaq 111 (WinMobile 6 Classic WWE) has the same issue. I need to open a Support case to see what HP says.
|
|
|
|
04-18-08, 06:51 PM
|
#4 (permalink)
|
|
Aximsite Minor League
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 135
Thanked 12 Times in 7 Posts
|
Originally Posted by pejaco
|
WiFi works correctly for general network access. It is when using WiFi scanners like WiFiFoFum or PeekPocket that the channel is misreported.
David, what scanner were you using? My brand new iPaq 111 (WinMobile 6 Classic WWE) has the same issue. I need to open a Support case to see what HP says.
|
Personally I prefer WiFiFoFum as MiniStumbler does not work and no longer appears to be under active development. The iPAQ 111 appears to suffer some problems that the 210 does not, perhaps in part due to the different driver it appears to use. I have tried them all, and all incorrectly report the channel. As such I'll continue to use WiFiFoFum where I hope the developer of it will work on correcting the channel problem in the near future.
|
|
|
|
04-20-08, 03:12 PM
|
#5 (permalink)
|
|
Aximsite Prospect
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 7
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
I opened a Business Support Center case yesterday, we'll see what kind of response I get from HP.
|
|
|
|
04-21-08, 08:42 PM
|
#6 (permalink)
|
|
Aximsite Prospect
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 7
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
The first reply to my case (on an iPaq 111) is pretty unsatisfying:
I replied by giving them the links to PeekPocket and WiFiFoFum. Hopefully they will install the programs and witness the issue firsthand.
|
|
|
|
04-23-08, 07:17 PM
|
#7 (permalink)
|
|
Aximsite Prospect
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 7
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
A second follow-up on my case:
|
Quote:
|
|
I can't set expecations for a resolution to this matter as of yet. I am going to have this problem looked into and see if there is an update in the works for this model handheld as there was the iPAQ 210. There may also be a ROM update coming out in the near future. I will keep you informed.
|
Since I opened my case on my iPaq 111, I'm guessing they aren't looking into the situation on the 210 as well. Someone might want to open a similar case on the 210....
|
|
|
|
05-15-08, 10:42 PM
|
#8 (permalink)
|
|
Aximsite Prospect
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 7
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
HP finally released a working firmware updater, and I installed it on my iPaq 111. I now show ROM version 1.01.06-667-WWE and WLAN driver version 38.p44.
This did NOT fix the problem with the Channel being misreported -- WiFiFoFum and PeekPocket still show '858512' as the channel for all networks.
Back to HP the ball goes...
|
|
|
|
06-05-08, 11:20 PM
|
#9 (permalink)
|
|
Aximsite Prospect
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 7
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Progress
In case no one with a 210 has opened a case on the WiFi issue, please do so! I got a phone call from HP Support tonight indicating they are escalating my case on the 111 up to development.
They noted that the problem with the channel reporting was seen with several applications on the HPs AND some other manufacturer's PDA that run the Marvell chipset.
The case gets passed to development and then on to Marvell as necessary. No promises on when the issue might be resolved (it was noted that this isn't the highest priority item being worked), but at least the issue is moving up the foodchain!
|
|
|
|
06-06-08, 06:29 AM
|
#10 (permalink)
|
|
Aximsite Minor League
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 135
Thanked 12 Times in 7 Posts
|
Originally Posted by pejaco
|
In case no one with a 210 has opened a case on the WiFi issue, please do so! I got a phone call from HP Support tonight indicating they are escalating my case on the 111 up to development.
They noted that the problem with the channel reporting was seen with several applications on the HPs AND some other manufacturer's PDA that run the Marvell chipset.
The case gets passed to development and then on to Marvell as necessary. No promises on when the issue might be resolved (it was noted that this isn't the highest priority item being worked), but at least the issue is moving up the foodchain!
|
Have you got a case # that we can reference? Mine is 3602196659 Thanks
Last edited by David Hettel; 06-06-08 at 07:16 AM.
|
|
|
|
06-08-08, 11:54 AM
|
#11 (permalink)
|
|
Aximsite Prospect
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 7
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
My Case is #3601687109, against the iPaq 111.
|
|
|
|
07-21-09, 12:28 AM
|
#12 (permalink)
|
|
Aximsite Prospect
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
A reply from HP on the Marvell situation
After a long long long wait, I got this reply from HP regarding the Marvell chipset situation. Please continue to hold your breath for the next (if ever) update to the firmware, which may or may not address the situation in a way that would help us all....
--- HP Support Response ---
After doing some investigation, we discovered what the likely culprit is a difference in the format the Marvell driver provides the channel information.
Obtaining the channel information is commonly done by querying the WLAN driver for a data structure called OID_802_11_CONFIGURATION
This data structure contains the following items (from OID_802_11_CONFIGURATION)
Structure: OID_802_11_CONFIGURATION
Length
Specifies the length of the NDIS_802_11_CONFIGURATION structure in bytes.
BeaconPeriod
Specifies the interval between beacon message transmissions. This value is specified in Kµsec (1024 µsec).
ATIMWindow
Specifies the announcement traffic information message (ATIM) window in Kµsec (1024 µsec). The ATIM window is a short time period immediately after the transmission of each beacon in an IBSS configuration. During the ATIM window, any station can indicate the need to transfer data to another station during the following data-transmission window.
DSConfig
Specifies the frequency of the selected channel in kHz.
FHConfig
Specifies the frequency-hopping configuration in an NDIS_802_11_CONFIGURATION_FH structure.
The important item is DSConfig. Normally the WLAN driver returns DSConfig in kHZ (such as "2412000" for channel 1). The developer then uses another calculation to convert frequency to the corresponding channel. For example (taken from source code samples found on the net):
“pBSSIDInfo[i].Channel=(pItem->Configuration.DSConfig - 2407000)/5000”
or “…configuration.DSConfig - 2412000)/5000 ) + 1;”
These example lines of code would leave you with a value of 1-11 for the channel at the end of the calculation.
Marvell’s implementation appears to return the frequency in mHZ, so that DSConfig would return a value of “2412” for channel 1. If an application is hard-coded to expect the value in kHZ, it likely returns an out-of-range value after performing further calculations to get the channel. With Marvell products, to obtain the correct channel you’d have to make a simple change to the calculation, such as “(pBSSIDInfo[i].Channel=(pItem->Configuration.DSConfig - 2407) / 5)”.
Our engineers are aware of it, but in all honesty, I don’t see them pursuing a standalone driver release just for this specific issue alone. Something like this (if it can be corrected) would likely be rolled in with other small fixes as part of a larger WLAN driver update if released in the future. If you’re looking for a fix in the short term for WiFiFoFum or similar application, I’d recommend letting the application developer know about the difference in how Marvell returns the value of DSConfig and see if they can adjust in their code.
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:31 PM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2 Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0
Copyright © 2003-09 LeckMedia, LLC
|
| |