On Sat, Jan 13, 2007 at 02:41:06AM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote: > On Saturday 13 January 2007 01:47, Larry Finger wrote: > >Gene Heskett wrote: > >> The following is a message I'd posted to the fedora list earlier, with > >> few replies. > >> > >> On Wednesday 10 January 2007 22:00, David Hollis wrote: > >>> On Wed, 2007-01-10 at 19:55 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote: > >>>> On Wednesday 10 January 2007 18:13, David Hollis wrote: > >>>>> On Wed, 2007-01-10 at 16:48 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> >> Jan 10 16:04:21 diablo kernel: bcm43xx: Microcode rev 0x13f, pl 0x66 > >> (2005-10-15 22:46:19) > >> Jan 10 16:04:21 diablo kernel: bcm43xx: Firmware: no support for > >> microcode rev > 0x128 Your bcm43xx driver wants to have an old v3 firmware. And if you feed it with newer v4 firmware you will get such a reaction. > That's a bit confusing since the chip, from the way I'm reading that > message, is revision 13f, and in comparing md5sums, what I have is either > a miss-match from that chart (its late, the url escapes me ATM), the only > matching md5sum is from a microcode "11" in that chart, but the length of > the file is wrong by 200 bytes or so. Those you see above were extracted > >from the installed and working flawlessly (much to my chagrin) Windows XP > that came on that lappy and which I haven't recovered the disk space I > left it. (yet) The revision numbers (0x13f, 0x127) are not any chip revisions. These are microcode revisions and they are defined in the firmware. The md5sums which do not match was a bug in the old 004 version of fwcutter. The extraction parameters for some v4 bcmwl5.sys driver files (IIRC, it was 4.10.40.0 and 4.10.40.1) were wrong. But this was fixed in fwcutter release 005. Martin _______________________________________________ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
