Talk:Broadcom wireless

From ArchWiki
Revision as of 13:02, 16 July 2013 by Kynikos (talk | contribs) (moved from ArchWiki Talk:Reports)
Jump to: navigation, search

b44 not load

I have the same configuration mentioned in the instructions. Dell Inspiron with BCM4401 and BCM4328 cards.

I still can not get these two cards to work together.

I have configured my machine just like the method stated but my ethernet card (b44) will not load.

Is there something else that could cause a conflict between multiple Broadcom modules?

Device not showing up

Hi, I'm new to editing wiki sites. So I don't really know if there's a convention about how people are going to interact when editing others pages. I added a sentence under the section "Device not showing up" that for me it worked only if i removed the exclamation mark before lib80211. I guess I should have posted something here first. I'm sorry if I have violated the process in anyway and you are free to remove it. But I leave it there so that you can decide if it fits in the page or not. Sorry for any trouble this might have caused.
-- Mabac (talk) 15 December 2010

broadcom-wl work well

I'm running a new dv7-7000 with a Broadcom Corporation BCM4313 802.11b/g/n Wireless LAN Controller (rev 01). I could not get this to work with the kernel drivers. The signal was so weak it wouldn't obtain an IP address from DHCP, even right next to the AP. Using broadcom-wl did the trick and things are working great.--Skarphace (talk) 05:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Problem with bcm43xx

there is a common problem with some cards managed with the b43 driver, it gets disconnected randomly, with an error in dmesg saying:

kernel: No probe response from AP <addr> after 500ms, disconnecting.

but some googlin' gives the solution, i guess it should be included here as an advice: type the folowing in a shell:

sudo touch /etc/modprobe.d/b43.conf
echo "options b43 pio=1 qos=0" | sudo tee -a /etc/modprobe.d/b43.conf

-- Alvaro Martinez (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

We don't like putting echo, cat, etc. in instructions, so if someone does decide that this should be in the main article, make it look similar to this:
Add the file below:
options b43 pio=1 qos=0
-- Jstjohn (talk) 10:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Allowing user signatures on main article pages in limited situations?

[moved from ArchWiki Talk:Reports. -- Kynikos (talk) 13:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)]

I recently made some edits to the Broadcom wireless page under the Miscellaneous user notes section which, I now realize, contradict our current style guide for the wiki. I wanted to discuss whether we want to allow user signatures in very limited situations to facilitate maintenance of the article content (and also whether I should revert my edits).

This also raises the issue of whether a section like that should even be contained in the main article at all. Given the rather informal nature of a "miscellaneous notes" section, the material seems more fitting for the talk page than the main article. Maybe we should move such articles to the talk page, and simply provide a link to the talk page under the heading on the main article, so users are informed of this information's existence elsewhere? I do feel that this type of information is very useful, especially for a topic as finicky as wireless drivers can be.

How do you all feel about this?
-- Jstjohn (talk) 22:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

-1 for this style of user input. The info provided are very informal. I suspect some comment is out of date. They should be removed to avoid confusion. But I can not do it because they lack some critical info such as kernel version. --Fengchao (talk) 01:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I have no idea whether some of those comments are out of date either, but what I'd do would be changing them into an impersonal FAQ or Troubleshooting section, which should be quite an easy thing to do. -- Kynikos (talk) 14:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Agreed that FAQ sections are the right thing to do in these cases. A big problem with anecdotes from specific users is that they can't be reworded/rewritten or updated since they're a quote. At best, they could be replaced by a newer quote... collaboratively written wording is nicer :). thestinger (talk) 21:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)