On 07/21/2012 12:53 PM, Yioryos Asprobounitis wrote:
I'm sorry but I did not run any bg-acr! commands except the one you
suggested. The only command that I run outside your suggestions is
bg-acr@ .bg-acr with no batman.fth/batman-start first, which
certainly can not account for the erratic
--- On Sun, 7/22/12, Richard A. Smith rich...@laptop.org wrote:
Actually I believe it is worth the trouble because there is
never just a single problem that doesn't happen to another
machine. If you have this failure then there are
probably many more. Its just never been reported.
I'm
On 07/22/2012 04:29 PM, Yioryos Asprobounitis wrote:
As I said before, the problem needs an engineer if it is to be investigated any
further, and I'm not.
You are welcome to the battery.
Ok. Well then please send me the battery.
Richard Smith
One Laptop per Child
222 3rd St. STE 0234
--- On Thu, 7/19/12, Richard Smith rich...@laptop.org wrote:
- Boot the XO. Sugar or OFW either will work.
- Run on battery and allow the battery to discharge
until is
says its 90%
- Connect power and let the battery charge to
full.
- Reboot XO and stop at OFW.
- ok batman-start
On 07/21/2012 03:05 AM, Yioryos Asprobounitis wrote:
- ok bg-acr@ .bg-acr (Should print zero)
ACR: -0.42
Hmm... I was expecting zero. I'm traveling to Taiwan right now and
don't have 1.0 or 1.5 with me to check.
- Insert battery
- ok bg-acr@ .bg-acr
ACR: -0.84
.42mAh / 24 hours =
--- On Sat, 7/21/12, Richard A. Smith rich...@laptop.org wrote:
Yes and I'll continue to say it as long as you continue to
do things
that are invalid and will produce nonsensical results.
I've told you a
few times that when you run commands like bg-acr! that you
are modifying
important
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 11:43 PM, Yioryos Asprobounitis
mavrot...@yahoo.com wrote:
At which point exactly the - insert battery step goes between - Remove
battery and - ok bg-acr@ .bg-acr ?
Ooops. That's kind of important. Sorry. Updated list below. You
need to insert the battery after you
On an XO-1
The reading is -4610.42 (!?)
Its a 2's compliment number. Negative values are normal. But you need
more than 1 reading. A single reading of the ACR doesn't tell you
anything unless you reset it to a known value before you start.
Reboot to Sugar and got very little battery
At no
--- On Wed, 7/18/12, Richard Smith rich...@laptop.org wrote:
- Start with the XO in a clean working condition. ie remove
all power
and battery.
- Boot the XO. Sugar or OFW either will work.
- Run on battery and allow the battery to discharge until is
says its 90%
- Connect power and
1) Connect XO 1 or 1.5 to external power.
2) Boot the machine and stop at the open firmware prompt
3) Allow battery to charge up up until full.
4) print out the ACR with:
ok bg-acr@ .bg-acr
5) remove battery
6) record the printed ACR number somewhere
7) Note time of battery removal
8)
On 07/04/2012 12:20 PM, Yioryos Asprobounitis wrote:
0 bg-acr! solved the problem of the erratic reading.
Logs look more reasonable now (though there is still a sudden jump from 87 to
96% during charging in one log.
Thats normal. There isn't any calibration of the capacity as the
capacity
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 12:19 AM, Mikus Grinbergs mi...@bga.com wrote:
DISCLAIMER: I am not asking for help; I'm merely sharing my experiences
I have an XO-1 which with recent q2f roms might boot up with the power light
green, or might boot up with the power light blinking red (and the
After that test, I run bat-recover once more I noticed several strange things.
Running bat-recover is unnecessary and for your battery basically
useless. Also bat-recover runs outside of normal battery processing
so your SoC values (the %) may be invalid until you do a full
discharge or
DISCLAIMER: I am not asking for help; I'm merely sharing my experiences
I have an XO-1 which with recent q2f roms might boot up with the power
light green, or might boot up with the power light blinking red (and the
battery icon in Frame claiming not connected).
The last time it booted up
On 06/12/2012 12:26 PM, Yioryos Asprobounitis wrote:
OK Attached are the screenlogs from the serial output
screenlog.charging is yesterdays log whith half full to fully charged battery
2339275:LDACR Update request ACR:-19791 LDACR:-19792
2339471:GC_LDACR=-19792 SOC = 58
2470692:LDACR Update
Could you please do another test, to verify that screen is
not
configuring the serial port any differently with or without
,n,8,1.
You don't need to connect the two laptops together, just use
the one
you use as the serial terminal. The test uses the stty
program to
display the serial
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 11:07:44PM -0700, Yioryos Asprobounitis wrote:
James wrote:
Could you please do another test, to verify that screen is not
configuring the serial port any differently with or without
,n,8,1. You don't need to connect the two laptops together, just
use the one you
You can reduce the chance of contact noise derailing the
transmission
by connecting the two laptops in a specific order:
or maybe adding ,n,8,1 in the command ?...
(I still think is a good idea to add it in the wiki. Even with the notion that
although not necessary may reduce unexpected
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 12:16:13AM -0700, Yioryos Asprobounitis wrote:
You can reduce the chance of contact noise derailing the
transmission
by connecting the two laptops in a specific order:
or maybe adding ,n,8,1 in the command ?...
No, that will make no difference.
(I still
Perhaps your comm settings are wrong?
115200,n,8,1 is what they
should be set to.
That did the trick (thus my change in the wiki)
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 11:17:06PM -0700, Yioryos Asprobounitis wrote:
? Perhaps your comm settings are wrong??
115200,n,8,1 is what they
should be set to.?
That did the trick (thus my change in the wiki)
I think it was coincidence. Please try without it.
--
James Cameron
? Perhaps your comm settings are wrong??
115200,n,8,1 is what they
should be set to.?
That did the trick (thus my change in the wiki)
I think it was coincidence. Please try without it.
At least in my setting ie XO-1.75 embedded keyboard model with the problem
battery and the
From: Richard A. Smith rich...@laptop.org
To: devel@lists.laptop.org
Subject: Re: XO battery/performance [Devel Digest, Vol 76,
Issue 4]
Message-ID: 4fd5e76c.3010...@laptop.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
On 06/10/2012 01:07 AM, Yioryos Asprobounitis wrote
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 09:15:48AM -0700, Yioryos Asprobounitis wrote:
? Perhaps your comm settings are wrong??
115200,n,8,1 is what they
should be set to.?
That did the trick (thus my change in the wiki)
I think it was coincidence.?? Please try without it.
At least in
On 06/10/2012 01:07 AM, Yioryos Asprobounitis wrote:
Took some time and a lot of juggling and ended up to a lot of
questionmarks in black diamonds so I do not really know if I did it
right or wrong, but here is the screen log just the same.
You may or may not have done anything wrong but the
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 08:41:16AM -0400, Richard A. Smith wrote:
On 06/10/2012 01:07 AM, Yioryos Asprobounitis wrote:
Took some time and a lot of juggling and ended up to a lot of
questionmarks in black diamonds so I do not really know if I did it
right or wrong, but here is the screen log
On Sat, Jun 09, 2012 at 10:07:36PM -0700, Yioryos Asprobounitis wrote:
Also I had a hard time detaching from the screen. Maybe
the wiki page needs some clarification.
What C-a means? Capital C, dash, a 3 consecutive characters?
ctrl+a? shift-c-a keys together? other?
C-a means ctrl+a, that
--- On Sun, 6/3/12, Richard A. Smith rich...@laptop.org wrote:
From: Richard A. Smith rich...@laptop.org
Subject: Re: XO battery/performance [Devel Digest, Vol 76, Issue 4]
To: Yioryos Asprobounitis mavrot...@yahoo.com
Cc: devel@lists.laptop.org
Date: Sunday, June 3, 2012, 8:41 AM
On 06/03
On 06/03/2012 04:43 AM, Yioryos Asprobounitis wrote:
serial connector loaded. Its
the connector under the heat spreader.
There goes my new XO-1.75...
Think of it a a rite of passage.
Just to be sure, is the UART 4, CN23, shown in the attached picture in blue.
Correct?
Correct.
If
I don't see anything that looks obviously wrong. So
here's a test to
see if the EC is going to sleep or not. Run the
battery down to where
the red LED is active. Then power off the
laptop. If the EC goes into
stop mode the red LED should go out after a few
seconds. If you press a
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 3:12 AM, Samuel Greenfeld greenf...@laptop.org wrote:
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 8:07 PM, Richard A. Smith rich...@laptop.org wrote:
On 05/30/2012 03:34 AM, Yioryos Asprobounitis wrote:
Most of the test had empty values but the informative ones (below) show
that the XO-1.5
This battery is really strange...
After an O/N with the battery out of the XO tried to run it down and suddenly
none of the info in /sys/devices/0.baterry/power_supply/olpc-battery/ was
changing after an hour of CPU burn and the battery was showing as Full
Shutdown and removing the battery
I'm very suspect of this measurement. The 1.5 has
a hardware floating
point unit and the 1.75 is still using
soft-float. Its extremely unlikely
that the floating point performance on 1.75 is better
than the 1.5.
Hard FP status depends on if Yioryos is running 11.3.1 or
12.1.0.
Looking at those numbers I am quite certain that he is using F17 and
hardfp on the 1.75. Floating Point performance of the VIA vx855
chipset is a known limitation. It is something that they fixed in the
next generation vx900 chipset.
Got a reference for this known limitation ?
--
Richard
--- On Sat, 6/2/12, Richard Smith rich...@laptop.org wrote:
From: Richard Smith rich...@laptop.org
Subject: Re: XO battery/performance [Devel Digest, Vol 76, Issue 4]
To: Yioryos Asprobounitis mavrot...@yahoo.com
Cc: devel@lists.laptop.org
Date: Saturday, June 2, 2012, 8:27 AM
then. Do you
have a XO-1.5 or 1.75? Something with an EC serial connector
loaded?
I have the adaptor on the J1 of an XO-1. Will it do?
No.
If not, where is CN24? (a picture or a reference to the XO-1 board will help)
XO-1 did not ship with an EC connector loaded. That's why I asked
about
On 05/30/2012 03:34 AM, Yioryos Asprobounitis wrote:
If you want an idea of low-level performance, I can suggest
running LMBench.
Got the Debian lmbench_3.0-a7 source that compiles and runs fine w/o bitkeeper.
Run the hardware part of the tests on the XO-1.5 (os880) and xo-1.75 (os12-
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 8:07 PM, Richard A. Smith rich...@laptop.org wrote:
On 05/30/2012 03:34 AM, Yioryos Asprobounitis wrote:
Most of the test had empty values but the informative ones (below) show
that the XO-1.5 is better in basic integer operations and memory bandwidth
while the
Most of the test had empty values but the
informative ones (below) show
that the XO-1.5 is better in basic integer
operations and memory bandwidth
while the XO-1.75 is better in float and double
operations as well as in
memory latency.
I'm not sure how much this means for real life
If you want an idea of low-level performance, I can suggest
running LMBench.
Got the Debian lmbench_3.0-a7 source that compiles and runs fine w/o bitkeeper.
Run the hardware part of the tests on the XO-1.5 (os880) and xo-1.75 (os12-
correct kernel) with the same configuration.
What was
--- On Mon, 5/28/12, Martin Langhoff martin.langh...@gmail.com wrote:
H. Sorry, I disagree here. You have usage cases, and
they are very
different from each other. There isn't much normal.
I would agree with this.
The original test although intended for other things, suggested that the
--- On Mon, 5/28/12, Jon Nettleton jon.nettle...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Jon Nettleton jon.nettle...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: XO battery/performance
To: Yioryos Asprobounitis mavrot...@yahoo.com
Cc: OLPC Devel devel@lists.laptop.org
Date: Monday, May 28, 2012, 3:45 AM
*snip*
http
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 4:59 AM, Yioryos Asprobounitis
mavrot...@yahoo.com wrote:
The test was done is Sugar and during the entire test the backlight was on
and the rolling count output was displayed in the terminal activity. The
XOs were associated with the same AP but no network or other
--- On Mon, 5/28/12, Martin Langhoff martin.langh...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Martin Langhoff martin.langh...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: XO battery/performance
To: Yioryos Asprobounitis mavrot...@yahoo.com
Cc: OLPC Devel devel@lists.laptop.org
Date: Monday, May 28, 2012, 2:18 PM
On Sat, May 26
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Yioryos Asprobounitis
mavrot...@yahoo.com wrote:
I do not think I claimed a sophisticated test.
Sorry, I didn't mean to hurt here. But it's really not testing what
you thought it was testing, as others have pointed out.
If you want an idea of low-level
G'day,
Your test script is a good test for scrolling performance in Terminal,
thanks.
I don't agree with the implications you have drawn though. I agree
that the scrolling hesitations would ruin the test ... because if the
bash process is blocked the counter would not increase.
--
James
Since I'm trying to figure this strange battery issue (
http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/devel/2012-May/035198.html ) I also tried to
test the XO-1(os880), XO-1.5(os883) and -1.75(os10) battery life and thought to
report it. It might be of help to someone.
The strange battery was not part of
47 matches
Mail list logo
