Processed: 981616 is fixed in 5.10.24-1
Processing control commands: > close -1 5.10.24-1 Bug #981616 [src:linux] 5GHz WiFi does not work with vc4.ko on RPi4 and 4K display Marked as fixed in versions linux/5.10.24-1. Bug #981616 [src:linux] 5GHz WiFi does not work with vc4.ko on RPi4 and 4K display Marked Bug as done -- 981616: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=981616 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#981616: 981616 is fixed in 5.10.24-1
Control: close -1 5.10.24-1 I recheck the situation with Debian kernel 5.10.24 and Debian firmware-brcm80211 20201218-3. 5GHz WiFi works fine with vc4 and without vc4. Debian package of firmware-brcm80211 newer than 20201218-3 has a severe issue with 5GHz WiFi as reported at https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=984489 https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=985632 But it is a separate topic. Best regards, Ryutaroh
Processed: Re: Bug#985632: firmware-brcm80211: [REGRESSION] RPi4B 5GHz WiFi stopped working with 20210208-4, 20201218-3 was fine
Processing control commands: > found -1 20210315-1 Bug #985632 [firmware-brcm80211] firmware-brcm80211: [REGRESSION] RPi4B 5GHz WiFi stopped working with 20210208-4, 20201218-3 was fine Marked as found in versions firmware-nonfree/20210315-1. -- 985632: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=985632 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#985632: firmware-brcm80211: [REGRESSION] RPi4B 5GHz WiFi stopped working with 20210208-4, 20201218-3 was fine
Control: found -1 20210315-1 > I will re-check 20210315-1. The system boots with 20210315-1 and the reported symtom remains in the same way. Ryutaroh
Bug#985632: firmware-brcm80211: [REGRESSION] RPi4B 5GHz WiFi stopped working with 20210208-4, 20201218-3 was fine
Hi Maximilian, thank you again for your response. > but are you sure that these > bootflags are still adequate for the latest cypress firmware? What did you mean by "bootflags"?? Did you mean /proc/cmdline (i.e. cmdline.txt in Raspberry Pi)? > concerning bluetooth unfortunately this seems missing firmware > in latest upstream firmware git (see #962038 ) or possible wget info > https://wiki.debian.org/RaspberryPi4#Bluetooth I know that bluetooth interferes with 2.4GHz WiFi with pure Debian packages as reported in https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=984844 I do not see any intererence between bluetooth and 5GHz WiFi. I doubt the intererence as bluetooth frequency does not overlap with 5GHz WiFi at all. With the firmware 20210208-4, 2.4GHz WiFi works fine provided that bluetooth is turned off by rfkill etc. I am running a combination of pure Debian packages and encountered the reported symptom. What is a Debian way to use 5GHz WiFi? Do you need additional information? > this should not be reproducible as 20210315-1 and 20210315-1~exp1 are > unchanged (just uploaded into experimental before unstable). I will re-check 20210315-1. Best regards, Ryutaroh
Processed: Re: Bug#985740: firmware-brcm80211: broken symlink: /lib/firmware/brcm/brcmfmac43362-sdio.lemaker,bananapro.txt -> brcmfmac43362-sdio.cubietech,cubietruck.txt
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > tags 985740 pending Bug #985740 [firmware-brcm80211] firmware-brcm80211: broken symlink: /lib/firmware/brcm/brcmfmac43362-sdio.lemaker,bananapro.txt -> brcmfmac43362-sdio.cubietech,cubietruck.txt Added tag(s) pending. > End of message, stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 985740: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=985740 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#985743: firmware-qcom-soc: broken symlink: /lib/firmware/qcom/sdm845/wlanmdsp.mbn -> ../../ath10k/WCN3990/hw1.0/wlanmdsp.mbn
Package: firmware-qcom-soc Version: 20210315-1 Severity: important User: debian...@lists.debian.org Usertags: piuparts Hi, during a test with piuparts I noticed your package ships (or creates) a broken symlink. >From the attached log (scroll to the bottom...): 0m15.9s ERROR: FAIL: Broken symlinks: /lib/firmware/qcom/sdm845/wlanmdsp.mbn -> ../../ath10k/WCN3990/hw1.0/wlanmdsp.mbn (firmware-qcom-soc) Is firmware-qcom-soc missing a dependency on firmware-atheros ? cheers, Andreas firmware-qcom-soc_20210315-1.log.gz Description: application/gzip
Bug#985740: firmware-brcm80211: broken symlink: /lib/firmware/brcm/brcmfmac43362-sdio.lemaker,bananapro.txt -> brcmfmac43362-sdio.cubietech,cubietruck.txt
Package: firmware-brcm80211 Version: 20210315-1 Severity: important User: debian...@lists.debian.org Usertags: piuparts Hi, during a test with piuparts I noticed your package ships (or creates) a broken symlink. >From the attached log (scroll to the bottom...): 0m14.6s ERROR: FAIL: Broken symlinks: /lib/firmware/brcm/brcmfmac43362-sdio.lemaker,bananapro.txt -> brcmfmac43362-sdio.cubietech,cubietruck.txt (firmware-brcm80211) cheers, Andreas firmware-brcm80211_20210315-1.log.gz Description: application/gzip
Bug#985632: firmware-brcm80211: [REGRESSION] RPi4B 5GHz WiFi stopped working with 20210208-4, 20201218-3 was fine
Dear Ryutaroh, > It is Raspberry Pi 4B 8GB model. I see thank you for all the dmesg. > > please show affected dmesg output working and non working, > > the difference between 20210208-3 20210208-4 is minimal, > > hence it should be easy to find out what broke? > > Not at all, unfortunately. > 20210208-3 was completely broken on RPi4B as > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=984489 > 20210208-1 to 20210208-3 were broken... > The last working version was 20201218-3, and I apt-mark-holded > firmware-brcm80211. > I unhold it in the weekend and found this issue. please excuse my ignorance first, but are you sure that these bootflags are still adequate for the latest cypress firmware? concerning bluetooth unfortunately this seems missing firmware in latest upstream firmware git (see #962038 ) or possible wget info https://wiki.debian.org/RaspberryPi4#Bluetooth > I attach dmesg of 20201218-3, 20210208-4, and 20210315-1. > It was also interesting that installation of 20210315-1 causes boot failure > and showed "Give root password for maintainance"... > Should I file a separete report against 20210315-1? > 20210315-1~exp1 was booted fine... this should not be reproducible as 20210315-1 and 20210315-1~exp1 are unchanged (just uploaded into experimental before unstable). Thank you for your report! maximilian
Processed: tg
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > tag 962038 upstream Bug #962038 [firmware-nonfree] firmware-nonfree: Add brcm-bluetooth (for RaspberryPi) Added tag(s) upstream. > End of message, stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 962038: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=962038 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#985687: linux-image-5.9.0-0.bpo.5-armmp: Set CONFIG_CAN_J1939=m
Yikes, how did I miss that? I guess it was too late in the night ... We tried 5.10.13-1 a few weeks back, but it had a kernel panic on boot. Without time to debug, we just reverted to a working 5.9.15-1. I see a promising bug fix in 5.10.13-1 changelog. We'll try again. Thanks for the help and apologizes for the noise. Regards Andrew On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 7:37 AM Vincent Blut wrote: > > Hi Andrew, > > Le 2021-03-22 04:26, Andrew Balmos a écrit : > > Package: src:linux > > Version: 5.9.15-1~bpo10+1 > > Severity: normal > > > > Dear Maintainer, > > > > Please consider setting kernel option "CONFIG_CAN_J1939=m" for at least > > buster-backports armmp. Without this setting the CAN J1939 protocol can > > not be easily used. > > buster-backports contains linux 5.10.19-1~bpo10+1 with CAN_J1939 enabled as a > module. Please upgrade! > > > Regards > > Andrew > > Cheers, > Vincent
Bug#985687: linux-image-5.9.0-0.bpo.5-armmp: Set CONFIG_CAN_J1939=m
Hi Andrew, Le 2021-03-22 04:26, Andrew Balmos a écrit : > Package: src:linux > Version: 5.9.15-1~bpo10+1 > Severity: normal > > Dear Maintainer, > > Please consider setting kernel option "CONFIG_CAN_J1939=m" for at least > buster-backports armmp. Without this setting the CAN J1939 protocol can > not be easily used. buster-backports contains linux 5.10.19-1~bpo10+1 with CAN_J1939 enabled as a module. Please upgrade! > Regards > Andrew Cheers, Vincent signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#985689: Needs CONFIG_UNICODE to mount ext4 fs with case-insensitivity feature
* On 3/22/21 9:40 AM, Bastian Blank wrote: > Control: tags -1 moreinfo > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 08:40:34AM +0100, Mihai Moldovan wrote: >> Currently, mounting an EXT4-formatted volume with the case-insensitivity >> feature >> is impossible since CONFIG_UNICODE is not enabled in the kernel >> configuration. > > Why would anyone want to do that? That point is debatable. I'd like to enable it in case I'd ever need it and it's pretty safe to do so. Even if the feature is enabled in ext4, it won't actually be used unless explicitly enabled on a per-directory basis. It won't just make the whole file system case-insensitive, but can be useful in niche situations like improved wine compatibility. In any case, I fear that the better argument (since others seem to lead to a holy war/gut feeling route) is that e2fsprogs can create such a file system (-O casefold), so it would be illogical to have a kernel which is not being able to mount such a volume. >> My best guess is that the chance of regressions is very low. > > In recent history it's just CVE-2021-21300. Which was a bug in git, not the kernel side of things, as far as I can see. The issue is that, currently, you can create such a file system and even if the feature is not actually used (since no directory within the volume enables case-insensitivity), the stock Debian kernel won't be able mount it. File systems like FAT aren't just disabled in the kernel configuration just because they happen to be case-insensitive by design. Mihai OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Processed: Re: Bug#985689: Needs CONFIG_UNICODE to mount ext4 fs with case-insensitivity feature
Processing control commands: > tags -1 moreinfo Bug #985689 [linux] Needs CONFIG_UNICODE to mount ext4 fs with case-insensitivity feature Added tag(s) moreinfo. -- 985689: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=985689 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#985689: Needs CONFIG_UNICODE to mount ext4 fs with case-insensitivity feature
Control: tags -1 moreinfo On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 08:40:34AM +0100, Mihai Moldovan wrote: > Currently, mounting an EXT4-formatted volume with the case-insensitivity > feature > is impossible since CONFIG_UNICODE is not enabled in the kernel configuration. Why would anyone want to do that? > My best guess is that the chance of regressions is very low. In recent history it's just CVE-2021-21300. Bastian -- No one wants war. -- Kirk, "Errand of Mercy", stardate 3201.7
Bug#985689: Needs CONFIG_UNICODE to mount ext4 fs with case-insensitivity feature
Package: linux Version: 5.10.19-1 Dear maintainers Currently, mounting an EXT4-formatted volume with the case-insensitivity feature is impossible since CONFIG_UNICODE is not enabled in the kernel configuration. Please consider enabling it. I'm leaving the severity at default, since the missing feature isn't just convenience, but actually has negative implications when mounting file systems. If that is any argument, Ubuntu 21.04 enables the feature, too. My best guess is that the chance of regressions is very low. Best regards Mihai Moldovan OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
