On 01/05/2010 08:27 PM, Larry Finger wrote:
> On 01/05/2010 11:18 AM, Michael Buesch wrote:
>
>> On Monday 04 January 2010 22:51:40 Oncaphillis wrote:
>>
>>> Did any of the patches for a device without a sprom make it
>>> into the 2.6.33-rc2 ?
>>>
>> No we decided that the patches
On 01/05/2010 11:18 AM, Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Monday 04 January 2010 22:51:40 Oncaphillis wrote:
>> Did any of the patches for a device without a sprom make it
>> into the 2.6.33-rc2 ?
>
> No we decided that the patches were not acceptable and need a rewrite towards
> firmware loading mechani
On Monday 04 January 2010 22:51:40 Oncaphillis wrote:
> Did any of the patches for a device without a sprom make it
> into the 2.6.33-rc2 ?
No we decided that the patches were not acceptable and need a rewrite towards
firmware loading mechanism.
Nobody's currently doing that, though.
--
Greeting
On 11/19/2009 12:30 PM, Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Thursday 19 November 2009 12:16:46 Oncaphillis wrote:
>> On 11/19/2009 12:09 PM, Michael Buesch wrote:
>>> On Thursday 19 November 2009 12:07:30 Oncaphillis wrote:
>>>
So I'm at a loss here, but if someone comes up with a bright
idea to t
On 20/11/09 10:54, Michael Buesch wrote:
Can somebody give me a genuine SPROM image for an LP-PHY card, please?
Just do this:
sudo cat $(find /sys/devices -name ssb_sprom)> ssb_sprom_copy
Does this help?
Andy
ssb_sprom_copy
Description: Binary data
__
On 11/20/2009 04:54 AM, Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Friday 20 November 2009 11:29:20 Oncaphillis wrote:
>> Ok -- Some more details about my experience that it appears to be slow.
>
>
> Note that there are several issues. First one being the sprom calibration
> values being _wrong_ for your card. S
On Friday 20 November 2009 11:29:20 Oncaphillis wrote:
> Ok -- Some more details about my experience that it appears to be slow.
Note that there are several issues. First one being the sprom calibration
values being _wrong_ for your card. Second one is LP-PHY performance being
crappy in
general
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Oncaphillis wrote:
> On 11/20/2009 10:27 AM, Michael Buesch wrote:
>> On Friday 20 November 2009 02:41:58 Oncaphillis wrote:
>>> On 11/20/2009 12:46 AM, Oncaphillis wrote:
On 11/19/2009 06:44 PM, Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Thursday 19 November 2009 16:41:
On 11/20/2009 10:27 AM, Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Friday 20 November 2009 02:41:58 Oncaphillis wrote:
>> On 11/20/2009 12:46 AM, Oncaphillis wrote:
>>> On 11/19/2009 06:44 PM, Michael Buesch wrote:
On Thursday 19 November 2009 16:41:12 Michael Buesch wrote:
> Wait, that still can't work.
On Friday 20 November 2009 02:41:58 Oncaphillis wrote:
> On 11/20/2009 12:46 AM, Oncaphillis wrote:
> > On 11/19/2009 06:44 PM, Michael Buesch wrote:
> >> On Thursday 19 November 2009 16:41:12 Michael Buesch wrote:
> >>> Wait, that still can't work. I'll fix it soon...
> >>
> >> Ok, here's the upda
On 11/20/2009 12:46 AM, Oncaphillis wrote:
> On 11/19/2009 06:44 PM, Michael Buesch wrote:
>> On Thursday 19 November 2009 16:41:12 Michael Buesch wrote:
>>> Wait, that still can't work. I'll fix it soon...
>>
>> Ok, here's the updated version. Please test this:
>> http://bu3sch.de/patches/wireless
On 11/19/2009 06:44 PM, Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Thursday 19 November 2009 16:41:12 Michael Buesch wrote:
>> Wait, that still can't work. I'll fix it soon...
>
> Ok, here's the updated version. Please test this:
> http://bu3sch.de/patches/wireless-testing/20091119-1842/patches/002-ssb-rewrite-spr
On Thursday 19 November 2009 16:41:12 Michael Buesch wrote:
> Wait, that still can't work. I'll fix it soon...
Ok, here's the updated version. Please test this:
http://bu3sch.de/patches/wireless-testing/20091119-1842/patches/002-ssb-rewrite-sprom-fallback-mechanism.patch
--
Greetings, Michael.
_
On Thursday 19 November 2009 16:27:01 Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Thursday 19 November 2009 14:26:42 Oncaphillis wrote:
> > On 11/19/2009 01:49 PM, Michael Buesch wrote:
> > > Can you please try the following patch?
> > > http://bu3sch.de/patches/wireless-testing/20091119-1349/patches/002-ssb-rewrit
On Thursday 19 November 2009 14:26:42 Oncaphillis wrote:
> On 11/19/2009 01:49 PM, Michael Buesch wrote:
> > Can you please try the following patch?
> > http://bu3sch.de/patches/wireless-testing/20091119-1349/patches/002-ssb-rewrite-sprom-fallback-mechanism.patch
> >
> >
> That seems to freeze
On 11/19/2009 01:49 PM, Michael Buesch wrote:
> Can you please try the following patch?
> http://bu3sch.de/patches/wireless-testing/20091119-1349/patches/002-ssb-rewrite-sprom-fallback-mechanism.patch
>
>
That seems to freeze my kernel. I tell you more in a couple of hours.
Can you please try the following patch?
http://bu3sch.de/patches/wireless-testing/20091119-1349/patches/002-ssb-rewrite-sprom-fallback-mechanism.patch
--
Greetings, Michael.
___
Bcm43xx-dev mailing list
Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios
On Thursday 19 November 2009 12:16:46 Oncaphillis wrote:
> On 11/19/2009 12:09 PM, Michael Buesch wrote:
> > On Thursday 19 November 2009 12:07:30 Oncaphillis wrote:
> >
> >> So I'm at a loss here, but if someone comes up with a bright
> >> idea to test or needs more informations I'm willing to
Erm, no. Can you please answer the questions that you didn't answer, yet?
>> Especially the request for the original vendor driver.
>>
>>
>>
> oh sorry. I did that, but the mail only went to larry -- stupid me -- the
> device didn't come with a CD/DVD and I killed Windows XP right away.
>
> S
On 11/19/2009 12:09 PM, Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Thursday 19 November 2009 12:07:30 Oncaphillis wrote:
>
>> So I'm at a loss here, but if someone comes up with a bright
>> idea to test or needs more informations I'm willing to test
>> the resulting code on my machine.
>>
> Erm, no. Can
On Thursday 19 November 2009 12:07:30 Oncaphillis wrote:
> So I'm at a loss here, but if someone comes up with a bright
> idea to test or needs more informations I'm willing to test
> the resulting code on my machine.
Erm, no. Can you please answer the questions that you didn't answer, yet?
Especi
So I'm at a loss here, but if someone comes up with a bright
idea to test or needs more informations I'm willing to test
the resulting code on my machine.
Sebastian
___
Bcm43xx-dev mailing list
Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mail
I just did some RE work on some SPROM routines from the Broadcom driver and
found the following:
1. They do a quick check to see if an SPROM exists. Starting at the ssb address
+ 4 * 1024, a total of 12 words (16 bit) are read. If any of them are not 0 and
not 0x, then a flag for the presence
Michael Buesch wrote:
> > Hmm, surprise surprise. The slot is empty. They seem to have moved
> > it onto the motherborad.
>
> Whoa, sick man. :)
>
> So I think there's a fair chance that there's no sprom at all, if
> the device is on-board.
One idea is to look up the FCC ID of the laptop in
On Thursday 19 November 2009 01:26:41 Oncaphillis wrote:
> >>
> >> Is it this device?
> >> http://hax0rpedia.com/index.php/Disassembeling_the_AAO_D250
> >>
> >> Can you open the lower-right cover shown here:
> >> http://hax0rpedia.com/index.php/File:Aao_d250_step2.jpg
> >> and take a closeup pict
>>
>> Is it this device?
>> http://hax0rpedia.com/index.php/Disassembeling_the_AAO_D250
>>
>> Can you open the lower-right cover shown here:
>> http://hax0rpedia.com/index.php/File:Aao_d250_step2.jpg
>> and take a closeup picture of the wireless card?
>> Also probably a picture of the backside of
On 11/18/2009 05:57 PM, Gábor Stefanik wrote:
> Hmm... this kinda reminds me of when the SPROM died on my Asus 4318,
> causing it to display as a "14e4:0008", and freeze immediately upon
> any SPROM read/write attempt. Quite possibly we have something similar
> here (there is an SPROM, but it's bro
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 12:39 AM, Michael Buesch wrote:
> Please keep it on-list. This is really important to get this debugged
> properly.
>
> On Thursday 19 November 2009 00:23:18 Oncaphillis wrote:
>> On 11/18/2009 11:59 PM, Michael Buesch wrote:
>> >> What kind of device is that? Some laptop?
Please keep it on-list. This is really important to get this debugged properly.
On Thursday 19 November 2009 00:23:18 Oncaphillis wrote:
> On 11/18/2009 11:59 PM, Michael Buesch wrote:
> >> What kind of device is that? Some laptop? I only knew about embedded
> >> devices
> >> using these wireless
On Wednesday 18 November 2009 23:53:42 Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Wednesday 18 November 2009 23:07:29 Oncaphillis wrote:
> > On 11/18/2009 06:51 PM, Larry Finger wrote:
> > > After you get access to the machine, please try my patch. It has been
> > > tested
> > > here. The first few lines from the
On Wednesday 18 November 2009 23:07:29 Oncaphillis wrote:
> On 11/18/2009 06:51 PM, Larry Finger wrote:
> > After you get access to the machine, please try my patch. It has been tested
> > here. The first few lines from the output are:
> >
> > ssb: Entering sprom_do_read
> > ssb: Read 0x2801 fr
On 11/18/2009 06:51 PM, Larry Finger wrote:
> After you get access to the machine, please try my patch. It has been tested
> here. The first few lines from the output are:
>
> ssb: Entering sprom_do_read
> ssb: Read 0x2801 from SPROM
> ssb: Read 0x103C137C from SPROM
> ssb: Read 0x6DBE0078 from
On 11/18/2009 11:36 AM, Oncaphillis wrote:
> I already tried something similar. Unfortunately I can not report in detail
> right now since I've once again killed my kernel and my acer stands at
> home.
> I'll give more details in a couple of hours -- but the punch line is:
>
> (1) if I transfor
On Wednesday 18 November 2009 18:36:12 Oncaphillis wrote:
> > Index: wireless-testing/drivers/ssb/pci.c
> > ===
> > --- wireless-testing.orig/drivers/ssb/pci.c
> > +++ wireless-testing/drivers/ssb/pci.c
> > @@ -251,10 +251,16 @@ static
On 11/18/2009 06:15 PM, Larry Finger wrote:
> On 11/18/2009 08:34 AM, Oncaphillis wrote:
>
>> The first ioread16 actually succeeds, only the second one fails.
>> My lspci -vnn tells me that the memory is:
>>
>> Memory at 5710 (64-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=16K]
>>
>> Could it be that one
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 6:15 PM, Larry Finger wrote:
> On 11/18/2009 08:34 AM, Oncaphillis wrote:
>> The first ioread16 actually succeeds, only the second one fails.
>> My lspci -vnn tells me that the memory is:
>>
>> Memory at 5710 (64-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=16K]
>>
>> Could it be that
On 11/18/2009 08:34 AM, Oncaphillis wrote:
> The first ioread16 actually succeeds, only the second one fails.
> My lspci -vnn tells me that the memory is:
>
> Memory at 5710 (64-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=16K]
>
> Could it be that one has to make a ioread32 here since the
> memory is 64-bit
On Wednesday 18 November 2009 15:34:23 Oncaphillis wrote:
> On 11/18/2009 08:54 AM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> > Oncaphillis wrote:
> >
> >> So as far as I understand both the early kernel as well as lspci
> >> think that the mmio area of the Broadcom chip is located at
> >> 5710 only ssb gets th
On 11/18/2009 08:54 AM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Oncaphillis wrote:
>
>> So as far as I understand both the early kernel as well as lspci
>> think that the mmio area of the Broadcom chip is located at
>> 5710 only ssb gets the wrong address. It gets set in ssbioremap
>> via pci_iomap.
>>
Oncaphillis wrote:
> So as far as I understand both the early kernel as well as lspci
> think that the mmio area of the Broadcom chip is located at
> 5710 only ssb gets the wrong address. It gets set in ssbioremap
> via pci_iomap.
After the call to pci_iomap, the physical address (5710) ge
> Thanks for posting the dmesg. In looking through it, the only thing I noticed
> was the following:
>
> [ 25.844834](523 KHz - 533 KHz @ 4 KHz), (600 mBi, 2300
> mBm)
> [ 25.844844](5735000 KHz - 5835000 KHz @ 4 KHz), (600 mBi, 3000
> mBm)
> [ 25.845455] cfg
On 11/16/2009 05:03 PM, Oncaphillis wrote:
>
> Which gives:
>
>
> [9.972581] In sprom_do_read with sprom address 0xF8079000
>
>
> This address is also calculated in ssbioremap
>
> You may have a look at the full dmesg under:
>
> http://oncaphillis.net/dmesg-aspire-d250.txt
Thanks
> I agree that the negative decimal converts to 0xF8068000. Could you please
> rerun
> the test with the routine changed to
>
> static int sprom_do_read(struct ssb_bus *bus, u16 *sprom)
> {
> printk(KERN_INFO "In sprom_do_read with sprom address 0x%X\n",
> bus->mmio+SSB_SPROM_
On 11/16/2009 02:21 AM, Oncaphillis wrote:
> On 11/16/2009 04:02 AM, Peter Stuge wrote:
>> Oncaphillis wrote:
>>> I poked around in the sbb code and found that ssb_do_read never
>>> returns:
>>>
>>>
>>> static int sprom_do_read(struct ssb_bus *bus, u16 *sprom)
>>
>> You wrote ssb_do_read above, th
On 11/16/2009 04:02 AM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Oncaphillis wrote:
>> I poked around in the sbb code and found that ssb_do_read never
>> returns:
>>
>>
>> static int sprom_do_read(struct ssb_bus *bus, u16 *sprom)
>
> You wrote ssb_do_read above, this is sprom_do_read. Maybe they call
> each other?
N
Oncaphillis wrote:
> I poked around in the sbb code and found that ssb_do_read never
> returns:
>
>
> static int sprom_do_read(struct ssb_bus *bus, u16 *sprom)
You wrote ssb_do_read above, this is sprom_do_read. Maybe they call
each other?
> So I guess the mmio address is wrong. It is set to d
On 11/15/2009 03:40 PM, Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Saturday 14 November 2009 21:20:28 Michael Buesch wrote:
>> Yeah, ok. That doesn't seem to be a bug in b43 then. It's the CRDA subsystem
>> waiting for a userspace daemon. But it won't finish waiting, because
>> userspace
>> is not running, yet. I
On Saturday 14 November 2009 21:20:28 Michael Buesch wrote:
> Yeah, ok. That doesn't seem to be a bug in b43 then. It's the CRDA subsystem
> waiting for a userspace daemon. But it won't finish waiting, because userspace
> is not running, yet. I guess running cfg80211 as module is an acceptable
> w
On Saturday 14 November 2009 21:03:09 Oncaphillis wrote:
> On 11/14/2009 08:45 PM, Michael Buesch wrote:
> > On Saturday 14 November 2009 12:24:24 Oncaphillis wrote:
> >> On 11/13/2009 08:20 PM, Larry Finger wrote:
> >>> On 11/13/2009 11:46 AM, Oncaphillis wrote:
> >>>
> Thanks for the tip
On 11/14/2009 08:45 PM, Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Saturday 14 November 2009 12:24:24 Oncaphillis wrote:
>> On 11/13/2009 08:20 PM, Larry Finger wrote:
>>> On 11/13/2009 11:46 AM, Oncaphillis wrote:
>>>
Thanks for the tip. But it still hangs
>>>
>>> We still need to know where it hangs. If
On Saturday 14 November 2009 12:24:24 Oncaphillis wrote:
> On 11/13/2009 08:20 PM, Larry Finger wrote:
> > On 11/13/2009 11:46 AM, Oncaphillis wrote:
> >
> >>Thanks for the tip. But it still hangs
> >
> > We still need to know where it hangs. If you boot to console mode (type a 3
> > on
> > th
On 11/14/2009 04:42 PM, Larry Finger wrote:
> On 11/14/2009 07:37 AM, Oncaphillis wrote:
>>> So it seems to me it doesn't even reach the loading of p43.ko
>>> but gets stuck in the cfg80211 layer.
>
> We can test that hypothesis. Generate a kernel without b43. Once it boots,
> enter
> the followin
On 11/14/2009 07:37 AM, Oncaphillis wrote:
>> So it seems to me it doesn't even reach the loading of p43.ko
>> but gets stuck in the cfg80211 layer.
We can test that hypothesis. Generate a kernel without b43. Once it boots, enter
the following commands as root:
modprobe -v rfkill
modprobe -v cfg8
On 11/14/2009 12:24 PM, Oncaphillis wrote:
> On 11/13/2009 08:20 PM, Larry Finger wrote:
>> On 11/13/2009 11:46 AM, Oncaphillis wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for the tip. But it still hangs
>>
>> We still need to know where it hangs. If you boot to console mode (type a 3
>> on
>> the option line in GRU
On 11/13/2009 08:20 PM, Larry Finger wrote:
> On 11/13/2009 11:46 AM, Oncaphillis wrote:
>
>>Thanks for the tip. But it still hangs
>
> We still need to know where it hangs. If you boot to console mode (type a 3 on
> the option line in GRUB), does it boot? If it does not, what is the last line
On 11/13/2009 03:02 PM, Oncaphillis wrote:
> On 11/13/2009 09:43 PM, Michael Buesch wrote:
>> On Friday 13 November 2009 21:36:31 Oncaphillis wrote:
>>> On 11/13/2009 08:20 PM, Larry Finger wrote:
>>> > On 11/13/2009 11:46 AM, Oncaphillis wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Thanks for the tip. But it st
On 11/13/2009 09:43 PM, Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Friday 13 November 2009 21:36:31 Oncaphillis wrote:
>> On 11/13/2009 08:20 PM, Larry Finger wrote:
>> > On 11/13/2009 11:46 AM, Oncaphillis wrote:
>> >
>> >> Thanks for the tip. But it still hangs
>> >
>> > We still need to know whe
On Friday 13 November 2009 21:36:31 Oncaphillis wrote:
> On 11/13/2009 08:20 PM, Larry Finger wrote:
> > On 11/13/2009 11:46 AM, Oncaphillis wrote:
> >
> >>Thanks for the tip. But it still hangs
> >
> > We still need to know where it hangs. If you boot to console mode
> (type a 3 on
> >
On 11/13/2009 08:20 PM, Larry Finger wrote:
> On 11/13/2009 11:46 AM, Oncaphillis wrote:
>
>>Thanks for the tip. But it still hangs
>
> We still need to know where it hangs. If you boot to console mode
(type a 3 on
> the option line in GRUB), does it boot? If it does not, what is the
la
On 11/13/2009 11:46 AM, Oncaphillis wrote:
> Thanks for the tip. But it still hangs
We still need to know where it hangs. If you boot to console mode (type a 3 on
the option line in GRUB), does it boot? If it does not, what is the last line
shown on the console? If your distro shows a splash sc
On Friday 13 November 2009 18:46:22 Oncaphillis wrote:
> Thanks for the tip. But it still hangs
So, any chance to tell us what "hangs" means? See my other mail.
--
Greetings, Michael.
___
Bcm43xx-dev mailing list
Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de
https://
On 11/13/2009 05:56 PM, William Bourque wrote:
>
> Oncaphillis wrote:
>> On 11/13/2009 05:12 PM, Larry Finger wrote:
>>> On 11/13/2009 09:33 AM, Oncaphillis wrote:
Hi,
I have a Acer One D250 which is equipped with a BCM4312 for
which on the homepage the support is marked as "in
Oncaphillis wrote:
> On 11/13/2009 05:12 PM, Larry Finger wrote:
>> On 11/13/2009 09:33 AM, Oncaphillis wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I have a Acer One D250 which is equipped with a BCM4312 for
>>> which on the homepage the support is marked as "in progress".
>>> Whenever the kernel tries to insert b43.k
On Friday 13 November 2009 17:41:21 Oncaphillis wrote:
> On 11/13/2009 05:12 PM, Larry Finger wrote:
> > On 11/13/2009 09:33 AM, Oncaphillis wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I have a Acer One D250 which is equipped with a BCM4312 for
> >> which on the homepage the support is marked as "in progress".
> >>
On 11/13/2009 05:12 PM, Larry Finger wrote:
> On 11/13/2009 09:33 AM, Oncaphillis wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have a Acer One D250 which is equipped with a BCM4312 for
>> which on the homepage the support is marked as "in progress".
>> Whenever the kernel tries to insert b43.ko it freezes. If've moved up
On 11/13/2009 09:33 AM, Oncaphillis wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a Acer One D250 which is equipped with a BCM4312 for
> which on the homepage the support is marked as "in progress".
> Whenever the kernel tries to insert b43.ko it freezes. If've moved up
> to 2.6.32-rc7, but is always stays like this.
>
Hi,
I have a Acer One D250 which is equipped with a BCM4312 for
which on the homepage the support is marked as "in progress".
Whenever the kernel tries to insert b43.ko it freezes. If've moved up
to 2.6.32-rc7, but is always stays like this.
01:00.0 Network controller [0280]: Broadcom Corporatio
67 matches
Mail list logo
