On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 4:25 PM, James Cameron <qu...@laptop.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 09:04:52AM -0500, Kevin Gordon wrote: > > Thanks for this detailed update. If i may summarize, if one is > > using a 12 or 13 O/S on any architecture, I'm assuming the > > recommended f/w is the most current, whether on XO-1, 1.5, 1.75 or > > 4. If running 11, well, one is on their own :-) > > Your summary disagrees with my view, which is more general: when you > have a choice of firmware, you should always use the latest. > > The latest supports any operating system version, and contains bug > fixes that reduce your cost of ownership. For volunteers, cost of > ownership is critical, as it increases the number of children you can > serve. > > > Any concern I had stems from the cases where some non-XO > > machines/appliances/ gadgets I have advise to not roll back > > firmware, ever, as changes to the NVRAM configuration can introduce > > changes that cause the older firmware to be loaded, but then > > unusable, thereby turning the device into the proverbial brick. My > > understanding, from the above discussion, is that this risk is not > > present with the XO. I may be getting old, but I seem to remember > > being expressly told to *NOT* downgrade my XO-1's from C to B f/w, > > but that was maybe back in the days when my laptop was made out of > > wood. > > I'm happy to get back into discussion after your summary. > > In the general case, we also recommend that you do not downgrade, > firstly because downgrades to version N from version N+1 are not > tested before version N is released (doh), but also because we knew of > certain versions that would brick (in the Q2B and Q2C series). > > However, since then we have tested more downgrades to the point we > know they are safe, and the only bricks due to downgrades happened > before mass production. > > If you are using a prototype XO then you've decided to take the risk. > A prototype may brick on upgrade. An upgrade may be forced by an > operating system install. > > > Anecdotally, I have successfully upgraded *many* XO-1s to Q2F19, and > > they are happily running a custom 11.3 build, so there is certainly > > no need to 'roll-back' in that environment. In fact, compared to > > the f/w "as-shipped", I get some nice USB added > > functionality/reliability with some weird-ass hubs/ sticks using the > > newest f/w. > > Yes, those are examples of the bugs fixed. Others include reset of > the clock to a valid date if the clock battery is lost. > > You have all regularly pointed out how important the clock battery is. > > > I have not yet upgraded any 11.3 XO 1.5 f/w to current yet. But, > > our 11.3 XO 1.5 deployments are now on Q3C07, and that seems to be > > just peachy. It's on the list to test Q3C16. > > This will bring: > > - antenna testing utility, > - booting from USB drives with embedded hubs, or external USB hubs, > - allow booting if the internal microSD card is missing, > - primitive laptop cloning capability, > - detection of incomplete download of .zd file, > - allow booting from ISO 9660 images, and hybrid images, > - reset of the clock to a valid date if the clock battery is lost, > - lid test, > - serial terminal and remote diagnosis tools, > - startup sound customisation, > - compatibility with USB drives with corrupt directories, > - compatibility with USB drives with empty extended partitions. > > Are you hitting any of these? > I believe we were experiencing those USB hub flakiness issues on the 1.5 as well; I will test that increased function very soon. > > Why do we continue to use 11.3? [... lack of time ...] > > No worries. Hopefully I've given you some tools that will increase > the time you have. > > (It is irritating that Adam, who started this thread, did not explain > _why_ he wanted to downgrade firmware, leaving us all to speculate.) > Well, as much as it would be fun to throw Mr. Holt under the bus on this, I must do the mea culpa. :-) I volunteered to lend Tim and him a slew of XO-1's to do AP testing, but I asked for him to confirm that if I had to roll back firmware as well as O/S that it was OK to do so. As it turns out, I then in the interim upgraded all their f/w to current ( using flash u:\q2f19.rom ) before handing them over, and all was good, thereby rendering the initial RFI moot, it would appear. Again, thanks for all the info, it's really helpful going forward. Cheers KG > > -- > James Cameron > http://quozl.linux.org.au/ > _______________________________________________ > Devel mailing list > Devel@lists.laptop.org > http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel >
_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
