On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 01:51:19PM -0700, Rick Stevens wrote: > On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 15:28 -0400, John W. Linville wrote: > > If you are/were an ndiswrapper user (please avoid it), then I suspect > > you might run into 32- vs 64-bit issues. But that is because you > > would actually be running the windows driver on the host CPU -- > > it has nothing to do with the Broadcom hardware itself. > > I have to differ with you on that, John. I run ndiswrapper for a > BCM4318 wifi on a 64-bit Athlon all the time using a Windows 64-bit DLL > for it. Works a treat. If you build ndiswrapper for your kernel AND > you use the correct DLL, then there's absolutely no 32/64-bit issue. > Ok, yes, I'm a "power user" and I build modules and kernels all the > time, but I stand by my statement. FWIW, this is exactly the "32- vs 64-bit issue" I was referencing (i.e. you have to math the bit width of the windows driver to the bit width of the driver). > Granted, I've not tried the latest versions, but ndiswrapper has worked > every time and I don't see any compelling reason to switch right now. > Perhaps when I have the time I'll try the new bcm43xx stuff, but for > now ndiswrapper works very reliably for me. Great. Just don't call me when it breaks. :-) John -- John W. Linville linville@xxxxxxxxxx
