Ok, replaced the ath10k Makefile with yours, but the new ath10k firmware failed to load on boot. Have currently swapped back to default Lede build again.
Weird stuff, I'm testing this new firmware for 3-4 days already without issues. dd-wrt has also switched to this one, because it has 80+80 mode fixed.
Quite strange, dmesg showed that the driver failed to load the firmware, as if it was the wrong type or something.
only thing i did was a rm Makefile and a wget Makefile from your github and recompile.
What are your wireless settings?
That doesn't matter as it already fails during the boot phase when the driver gets loaded.
but european country,
2.4ghz: channel 6, 17dbm, 20mhz
5ghz: channel 120, 20dbm, 80mhz AC
Will try to test some more later this week.
On working router try to manually replace latest firmware-5.bin (3.4-00068) and board-2.bin in /lib/firmware/ath10k/... folder and reboot
https://source.codeaurora.org/quic/qsdk/oss/firmware/ath10k-firmware/tree/ath10k/QCA9984/hw1.0
Have you tried other channels, country? Maybe it has smth to do with dfs feature failing during firmware initialisation?
Think i found the issue. a wget of the makefile gives me a file with 2400 lines somehow, where i should get 302 lines.
so i've now manually cut and paste the differences, and recompiled. Lets see how that works.
You can also download any Github commit by just adding ".patch" at the end:
wget https://github.com/dissent1/r7800/commit/9edae9438b5bf7792434fa8ade24307aa7637ea5.patch
You can apply that patch easily. No need for manual editing...
1 Like
@hnyman
in choosing your new router, what factor make you choose R7800 over WRT1900ACS?
is it related to ath10 over mlwifi?
i am still able to send back my wrt... seems your R7800 have more fun
Edit: Do you have any figure about USB 3 write speed? Are they the same like the small net builder mentioned, 55MBps?
I havenot tested wrt1900 series so no real comparison on details. You can read more of my device selection from
Thanks
I have read that post as well, and come up with a conclusion I should go for R7800.
Asking the previous questions is just a final check to see if there is any glithces...
Talking about the USB, it should be fast. Just curious on real world first hand speed.
Thanks for the tip.
The newer firmware now works great.
Any chance we could still get this newer firmware into Lede 17.01?
so the newer firmware is now in trunk, but over the day i still see some cosmetic errors that would be fixed by this new firmware:
[ 20.864003] ath10k_pci 0001:01:00.0: firmware ver 10.4-3.4-00068 api 5 features no-p2p,mfp,peer-flow-ctrl,btcoex-param crc32 fb5bee97
[ 6742.486101] ath10k_pci 0001:01:00.0: received unexpected tx_fetch_ind event: in push mode
[ 6742.486151] ath10k_pci 0001:01:00.0: received unexpected tx_fetch_ind event: in push mode
[ 9799.748258] ath10k_pci 0001:01:00.0: received unexpected tx_fetch_ind event: in push mode
[ 9799.748329] ath10k_pci 0001:01:00.0: received unexpected tx_fetch_ind event: in push mode
[ 9799.755500] ath10k_pci 0001:01:00.0: received unexpected tx_fetch_ind event: in push mode
[ 9799.763722] ath10k_pci 0001:01:00.0: received unexpected tx_fetch_ind event: in push mode
guess they still have some work to do 
Could you apply this to your tree
https://git.lede-project.org/?p=lede/nbd/staging.git;a=commit;h=f2a75b5b5867910dbe14bf7366fd9c4ebd0880d2
I could, but this thing is sitting as a main router at a family members house. Not really feeling like i should mess around to much with it (remotely). I've currently put it on V17.01 + the newer wifi firmware. My main focus is longterm stability.
i do have full a access to it via site-to-site vpn though.
Well, I actually do not face any issues with that updated wireless driver, so it would have been useful to know if it helps you with that syslog spam, because even previous firmware update fixed it mostly.
I've just bought a R7800 router and I'm running latest lede snapshot for 2 days with great results!
Wireless performance is really good, as good as the stock firmware, even better sometime. I was able to run a nperf.com test at 300Mbpps/250Mbps with my 11ac (80 MHz) laptop.
Regarding the wired performance, it seems stuck at around 800/850Mbps in a regular NAT scenario. (My fiber WAN connection is 1Gbps/250Mbps, and during the night, Iām able to perform 980Mbps/250Mbps speedtest with a PC directly connected to ONT). I know that hardware NAT is currently not implemented but with a dual core 1,7GHz CPU, I was especting the 1Gbps bandwidth...
On this thread, I can see many discussion regarding CPU clock variation: could you tell me how to monitor/check CPU clock ?
The easiest way is to install the LuCI statistics package and also the collectd-mod-cpufreq package that enables CPU frequency monitoring. (you might also install collectd-mod-thermal to see the CPU temps)
Or you can also look the current value from console:
root@LEDE:~# cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq
384000
root@LEDE:~# cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq
384000
When there is more load, it might look like this:
root@LEDE:~# cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu*/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq
1725000
384000
1 Like
Thanks a lot ! This is what I get on heavy load (750Mbps):
root@LEDE:~# cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu*/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq
1725000
1000000
and:
CPU: 0% usr 6% sys 0% nic 18% idle 0% io 0% irq 75% sirq
I guess CPU could be the bottleneck...
Could you show a cat /proc/interrupts? Might be to many services are running on the first cpu, and switching e.g. The wireless interfaces to the second cpu would improve overall performance.