On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 08:48:38 -0500
Larry Finger larry.fin...@lwfinger.net wrote:
On 10/23/2009 05:46 AM, Chris Vine wrote:
I will probably do that (maybe), but nonetheless I have identified
the offending ACPI module. If I blacklist the 'processor' module
then b43 works. I strongly
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 06:25:33 +0200
Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote:
Chris Vine wrote:
The problem is not with b43, but with ACPI. The debugging will
need to be done by that set of devs.
OK. I may try blacklisting different ACPI modules and see if I can
identify which one is
On 10/23/2009 05:46 AM, Chris Vine wrote:
I will probably do that (maybe), but nonetheless I have identified the
offending ACPI module. If I blacklist the 'processor' module then b43
works. I strongly suspect that kernel ACPI does not at present deal
correctly with Atom N270 idle states.
On Thursday 22 October 2009 01:05:31 Larry Finger wrote:
On 10/21/2009 04:16 PM, Chris Vine wrote:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:30:49 -0500
Larry Finger larry.fin...@lwfinger.net wrote:
On 10/20/2009 04:56 PM, Chris Vine wrote:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:53:24 -0500
Larry Finger
Chris,
Michael was right in that my previous debug messages were badly setup.
Please try the attached patch as a replacement for the previous one.
It will look at the data that is pushed into the DMA descriptors.
I also reviewed the thread. Have you tried acpi=off and apic=off?
Thanks,
Larry
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 17:06:53 -0500
Larry Finger larry.fin...@lwfinger.net wrote:
Chris,
Michael was right in that my previous debug messages were badly setup.
Please try the attached patch as a replacement for the previous one.
It will look at the data that is pushed into the DMA
On Do, 2009-10-22 at 17:06 -0500, Larry Finger wrote:
+ static int count;
count is declared, and incremented, but never set to 0. I guess this
will work anyway, because it might be magically cleared to 0 by defining
it (it is static, and will probably be allocated to some place that is
On 10/22/2009 05:46 PM, Chris Vine wrote:
No, I hadn't. But on doing so, booting with acpi=off makes b43 work
correctly.
In the light of this, do you want me to continue with this debugging? I
have to say though that I would be very reluctant to run my netbook
without ACPI: amongst other
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 17:55:55 -0500
Larry Finger larry.fin...@lwfinger.net wrote:
On 10/22/2009 05:46 PM, Chris Vine wrote:
No, I hadn't. But on doing so, booting with acpi=off makes b43 work
correctly.
In the light of this, do you want me to continue with this
debugging? I have to
Chris Vine wrote:
The problem is not with b43, but with ACPI. The debugging will
need to be done by that set of devs.
OK. I may try blacklisting different ACPI modules and see if I can
identify which one is causing the problem.
I'd suggest to go directly to the ACPI mailing list, do not
On 10/20/2009 04:56 PM, Chris Vine wrote:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:53:24 -0500
Larry Finger larry.fin...@lwfinger.net wrote:
This set of dmesg outputs was better; however, please set
CONFIG_B43_DEBUG=y in your configuration and rebuild the kernel.
Please post the full dmesg for warm and cold
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:30:49 -0500
Larry Finger larry.fin...@lwfinger.net wrote:
On 10/20/2009 04:56 PM, Chris Vine wrote:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:53:24 -0500
Larry Finger larry.fin...@lwfinger.net wrote:
This set of dmesg outputs was better; however, please set
CONFIG_B43_DEBUG=y in your
On 10/21/2009 04:16 PM, Chris Vine wrote:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:30:49 -0500
Larry Finger larry.fin...@lwfinger.net wrote:
On 10/20/2009 04:56 PM, Chris Vine wrote:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:53:24 -0500
Larry Finger larry.fin...@lwfinger.net wrote:
This set of dmesg outputs was better; however,
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:05:31 -0500
Larry Finger larry.fin...@lwfinger.net wrote:
Then try this patch without the previous one. It will generate some
warnings but they are harmless.
Working warm boot:
cfg80211: Using static regulatory domain
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:53:24 -0500
Larry Finger larry.fin...@lwfinger.net wrote:
This set of dmesg outputs was better; however, please set
CONFIG_B43_DEBUG=y in your configuration and rebuild the kernel.
Please post the full dmesg for warm and cold reboot.
For a warm boot it is:
cfg80211:
On Monday 19 October 2009 11:37:56 Chris Vine wrote:
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 22:14:31 -0500
Larry Finger larry.fin...@lwfinger.net wrote:
I see no difference in the output for the BCM4312 device; however,
there was a difference in the memory layout for the BCM5906 wired
network device. Please
On Monday 19 October 2009 11:46:00 Michael Buesch wrote:
On Monday 19 October 2009 11:37:56 Chris Vine wrote:
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 22:14:31 -0500
Larry Finger larry.fin...@lwfinger.net wrote:
I see no difference in the output for the BCM4312 device; however,
there was a difference in the
On Monday 19 October 2009 11:55:01 Michael Buesch wrote:
On Monday 19 October 2009 11:46:00 Michael Buesch wrote:
On Monday 19 October 2009 11:37:56 Chris Vine wrote:
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 22:14:31 -0500
Larry Finger larry.fin...@lwfinger.net wrote:
I see no difference in the output for
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:55:01 +0200
Michael Buesch m...@bu3sch.de wrote:
On Monday 19 October 2009 11:46:00 Michael Buesch wrote:
On Monday 19 October 2009 11:37:56 Chris Vine wrote:
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 22:14:31 -0500
Larry Finger larry.fin...@lwfinger.net wrote:
I see no difference in
On Monday 19 October 2009 12:03:40 Chris Vine wrote:
If you look at the diff of those logs, you also see that this is not
just reordering of stuff. At the very beginning you see some fairly
huge ACPI mapping that's not done for the failure case. So my guess
is that the ACPI simply fails to
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:55:01 +0200
Michael Buesch m...@bu3sch.de wrote:
On Monday 19 October 2009 11:46:00 Michael Buesch wrote:
On Monday 19 October 2009 11:37:56 Chris Vine wrote:
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 22:14:31 -0500
Larry Finger larry.fin...@lwfinger.net wrote:
I see no difference
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 12:12:59 +0200
Michael Buesch m...@bu3sch.de wrote:
Post the full log, please, so we can _verify_ that it's irrelevant.
Everything else is just bad guesswork.
Full marks for attitude. What do you take, for this purpose, as
being the full log? All of /var/log/messages,
On Monday 19 October 2009 12:58:50 Chris Vine wrote:
(If you are proposing that I should rebuild dmesg with a larger ring
buffer, then no.)
Why not? You want some help, right? So we need your help.
--
Greetings, Michael.
___
Bcm43xx-dev mailing list
On Monday 19 October 2009, Chris Vine wrote:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 12:12:59 +0200
Michael Buesch m...@bu3sch.de wrote:
Post the full log, please, so we can _verify_ that it's irrelevant.
Everything else is just bad guesswork.
Full marks for attitude. What do you take, for this purpose, as
being
On 10/19/2009 07:12 AM, Gene Heskett wrote:
On Monday 19 October 2009, Chris Vine wrote:
(If you are proposing that I should rebuild dmesg with a larger ring
buffer, then no.)
Chris
Chris, if its needed, then yes. Its a single entry in a 'make xconfig' and
rebuild reboot.
Chris, from
On 10/19/2009 01:00 PM, Chris Vine wrote:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 09:30:28 -0500
Larry Finger larry.fin...@lwfinger.net wrote:
Chris, from the lengths of the logs you posted, it looks as if your
kernel is built with CONFIG_LOG_BUF_SHIFT=9. That is way too small for
any meaningful debugging. Your
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:53:24 -0500
Larry Finger larry.fin...@lwfinger.net wrote:
This set of dmesg outputs was better; however, please set
CONFIG_B43_DEBUG=y in your configuration and rebuild the kernel.
Please post the full dmesg for warm and cold reboot.
My original posting (16 October) gave
On 10/19/2009 05:48 PM, Chris Vine wrote:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:53:24 -0500
Larry Finger larry.fin...@lwfinger.net wrote:
This set of dmesg outputs was better; however, please set
CONFIG_B43_DEBUG=y in your configuration and rebuild the kernel.
Please post the full dmesg for warm and cold
I have tried the latest wireless-testing and 2.6.32-rc5 and they both
still give DMA errors exactly like those I reported earlier. Perhaps
it's because the machine only has 1GB of RAM, and is an Atom compiled
with -march=core2 -mtune=generic -mfpmath=sse CFLAGS? (At least,
that's what I pass to
On Sunday 18 October 2009 13:25:14 Lance Hepler wrote:
I have tried the latest wireless-testing and 2.6.32-rc5 and they both
still give DMA errors exactly like those I reported earlier. Perhaps
it's because the machine only has 1GB of RAM, and is an Atom compiled
with -march=core2
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 20:36:03 +0100
Chris Vine ch...@cvine.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
...
get through (and my wife says it isn't true), I add additional simple
filters of my own: in particular I delete anything which is not
addressed to a known user on the system. As mailing list often don't
do
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 21:35:54 +0200
Gábor Stefanik netrolller...@gmail.com wrote:
Could you please try the real wireless-testing tree (as opposed to
compat-wireless)?
Also, what I noticed is that everyone with this problem appears to
have an Intel Atom CPU... weird. Maybe something weird is
On 10/18/2009 11:35 AM, Chris Vine wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 21:35:54 +0200
Gábor Stefanik netrolller...@gmail.com wrote:
Could you please try the real wireless-testing tree (as opposed to
compat-wireless)?
Also, what I noticed is that everyone with this problem appears to
have an Intel
On 10/18/2009 04:47 PM, Chris Vine wrote:
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 15:41:17 -0500
Larry Finger larry.fin...@lwfinger.net wrote:
Please post the output of the command 'sudo lspci -nnvvv' for the
BCM43XX device in the case of a cold boot (when it fails) and the case
of a warm boot from a loaded
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 21:35:54 +0200
Gábor Stefanik netrolller...@gmail.com wrote:
Could you please try the real wireless-testing tree (as opposed to
compat-wireless)?
Also, what I noticed is that everyone with this problem appears to
have an Intel Atom CPU... weird. Maybe something weird is
On Saturday 17 October 2009, Chris Vine wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 21:35:54 +0200
Gábor Stefanik netrolller...@gmail.com wrote:
Could you please try the real wireless-testing tree (as opposed to
compat-wireless)?
Also, what I noticed is that everyone with this problem appears to
have an
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 21:35:54 +0200
Gábor Stefanik netrolller...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Chris Vine ch...@cvine.freeserve.co.uk
wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 9:45:40 -0400
fre...@carolina.rr.com wrote:
2.6.32-rc? and wireless-compat was thought to work as well as
On 10/17/2009 01:12 PM, Charles Moschel wrote:
Also, what I noticed is that everyone with this problem appears to
have an Intel Atom CPU... weird. Maybe something weird is going on
with the Atom chipset's DMA handling.
No, it's not only Atom. I see it on Intel T4200 (dual core
Pentium,
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 08:24:59 -0400
Gene Heskett gene.hesk...@verizon.net wrote:
NDI what 'filter' you are using, but I just checked back over a
30 day corpus of this list, and no message in that 30 days even
rated above a 0 for spaminess, all were in the -2.3 to -2.5 range
according to
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 14:10:19 -0500
Larry Finger larry.fin...@lwfinger.net wrote:
On 10/17/2009 01:12 PM, Charles Moschel wrote:
Also, what I noticed is that everyone with this problem appears to
have an Intel Atom CPU... weird. Maybe something weird is going on
with the Atom chipset's DMA
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 1:44 AM, Charles Moschel fre...@carolina.rr.com wrote:
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 14:10:19 -0500
Larry Finger larry.fin...@lwfinger.net wrote:
On 10/17/2009 01:12 PM, Charles Moschel wrote:
Also, what I noticed is that everyone with this problem appears to
have an Intel
Hi,
I have a Levono S-12 Netbook, which has the Atom N270 processor and a
Broadcom 14e4:4315 wireless chip with low power PHY. lspci -vnn | grep
14e4 gives:
02:00.0 Ethernet controller [0200]: Broadcom Corporation NetLink BCM5906M
Fast Ethernet PCI Express [14e4:1713] (rev 02)
03:00.0
Hi Chris --
Chris Vine ch...@cvine.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
Hi,
I have a Levono S-12 Netbook, which has the Atom N270 processor and a
Broadcom 14e4:4315 wireless chip with low power PHY. lspci -vnn | grep
14e4 gives:
02:00.0 Ethernet controller [0200]: Broadcom Corporation
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 9:45:40 -0400
fre...@carolina.rr.com wrote:
2.6.32-rc? and wireless-compat was thought to work as well as
wireless-testing ... hmmm
Ah right. I had been trying 2.6.32-rc4 by itself and compat-wireless
with 2.6.31. If I build compat-wireless on top of 2.6.32-rc.4 the dma
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Chris Vine ch...@cvine.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 9:45:40 -0400
fre...@carolina.rr.com wrote:
2.6.32-rc? and wireless-compat was thought to work as well as
wireless-testing ... hmmm
Ah right. I had been trying 2.6.32-rc4 by itself and
45 matches
Mail list logo
