On Saturday 13 January 2007 06:20, Martin Langer wrote: >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.
So in this respect, ndiswrapper is ahead of bcm43xx then as it had no problem like this. I have it connecting now with ndiswrapper loaded, but while ifconfig says the interface is up, apparently routes aren't being properly set to that interface. And I was too tired to investigate further, still am in fact. Could the low tx power Larry alluded to also be a bcm43xx problem? Can you relate what was added in v4, and in v5? >> 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. I see. >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. The rpms apparently do not maintain that fine a grain to the version numbers, all I get for the query --version is 004 And this is available as an rpm for FC5? Where? I have extras and updates-testing enabled in yum, but didn't see a new bcm43xx-fwcutter yesterday, nor do I now. Thanks Martin. >Martin -- Cheers, Gene "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above message by Gene Heskett are: Copyright 2007 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved. _______________________________________________ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
