Re: Recent XO-1 OFW had difficulty reading USB stick

[Mikus Grinbergs]

I'm curious, why do you have security enabled?


Because that's the way they were shipped to me from the factory (or from 
whoever I purchased the unit from).


mikus



___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

Re: XO battery/performance [Devel Digest, Vol 76, Issue 4]

[Yioryos Asprobounitis]

> 
> 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 
> game button the EC should wake up briefly and the led will
> turn back on 
> then in a few seconds go back out.
> 

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 to reset the EC, made it behaved. The battery 
started from 35% and dropped normally thereafter.

As per the suggested test, indeed after shutting down at 9% with the red led 
on, pressing a game key lights up the red led for ~2 sec. 


> > What was striking was that the XO-1.75 used 25% of the
> battery for 1 run while the XO-1.5 used 65% of the battery!
> 
> If you are going to do more of this then you really need a
> better tool 
> than just the battery SOC measurement. 
 
I usually look either at the ~/power-logs/pwr-* or directly at 
/sys//power_supply/olpc-battery/* to check battery status

> olpc-pwr-log
> can sample the 
> information on a periodic basis and then my processing
> scripts can run 
> through those logs and produce various reports.
> 
> All of my tools are in my olpc-pwrlogs repo
> 
> git://dev.laptop.org/users/rsmith/olpc-pwrlogs
> 
> Let me know if you are interested and want to know how to
> use the tools.
> 

Sure. 
I can understand some bash scripting but python is out of my league, so please 
advise.

___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

Re: Re: Turtle Art sensor xo 1.75 range voltage

[forster]

Wad,
thanks,
Tony

> 
> On Jun 1, 2012, at 9:24 PM, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
> 
> >> We should test the calibration again.
> > Walter, Guzman
> > 
> > Testing with TA140
> > 
> > It looks like the 1.75 audio circuit was changed between the preproduction 
> > and the ramp unit 1.75's
> > 
> > Testing on SKU199 and SKU204, the impedance has gone from 1k to 4k and the 
> > calibration is all wrong on 204
> > 
> > (TA calibration should be OK for the moment on preproduction SKU199)
> > 
> > Can laptop.org please confirm that there was an audio redesign between 
> > SKU199 and SKU204? Is the SKU204 design now stable or can we expect further 
> > changes? 
> 
> Yes, there was a redesign which increased the resistance between the Mic 
> voltage source and the mic jack
> from roughly 1K to roughly 3K for improved microphone performance.All 
> production XO-1.75s use the SKU204 circuitry.
> 
> > Is the input protection the same as the 1.5: "The XO-1.5 is protected by a 
> > resistor,(1/16W 470 ohm SMD0402) and a pair of diodes to ground and to 
> > +3.3V which should protect -6V to +9V continuously, and up to higher 
> > voltages for shorter periods of time." 
> > http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Activities/TurtleArt/Using_Turtle_Art_Sensors#Specifications
> 
> Yes, the protection circuitry is the same as used on 1.5.
> 
> Chers,
> wad
> 
> 
> _
> This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line
> see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning

___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

Re: Turtle Art sensor xo 1.75 range voltage

[John Watlington]

On Jun 1, 2012, at 9:24 PM, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:

>> We should test the calibration again.
> Walter, Guzman
> 
> Testing with TA140
> 
> It looks like the 1.75 audio circuit was changed between the preproduction 
> and the ramp unit 1.75's
> 
> Testing on SKU199 and SKU204, the impedance has gone from 1k to 4k and the 
> calibration is all wrong on 204
> 
> (TA calibration should be OK for the moment on preproduction SKU199)
> 
> Can laptop.org please confirm that there was an audio redesign between SKU199 
> and SKU204? Is the SKU204 design now stable or can we expect further changes? 

Yes, there was a redesign which increased the resistance between the Mic 
voltage source and the mic jack
from roughly 1K to roughly 3K for improved microphone performance.All 
production XO-1.75s use the SKU204 circuitry.

> Is the input protection the same as the 1.5: "The XO-1.5 is protected by a 
> resistor,(1/16W 470 ohm SMD0402) and a pair of diodes to ground and to +3.3V 
> which should protect -6V to +9V continuously, and up to higher voltages for 
> shorter periods of time." 
> http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Activities/TurtleArt/Using_Turtle_Art_Sensors#Specifications

Yes, the protection circuitry is the same as used on 1.5.

Chers,
wad

___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

Re: Re: Re: Turtle Art sensor xo 1.75 range voltage

[forster]

James

I think I have eliminated software differences.

Both laptops reflashed to OS8 (12.1.0)

Turtle Blocks V141 ( a new version is just released)

Phono plug with left-right-ground all shorted

forever print voltage displays:
0VSKU199
-1.3V SKU204

Tony
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

Re: XO battery/performance [Devel Digest, Vol 76, Issue 4]

[Yioryos Asprobounitis]

> >
> >  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
> usage :-/
> >>
> >
> > 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.  Since he
> said "os10" by today's date I'm presuming 12.1.0.
> 
> The Fedora 17 builds should be hard fp (armv7hl).  The
> Fedora 14-based
> 11.3.1 builds are not (armv5tel / armv7l kernel).

Correct.
For the LMbench test the XO-1.75 was funning F17/21012o2 with the correct 
kernel per dsd's suggestion ( 
http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/devel/2012-May/035212.html )
The XO-1.5 was running F14/11.3.0 os880

___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

Re: Re: Re: Turtle Art sensor xo 1.75 range voltage

[forster]

Thanks

> > The turtle code is forever print voltage
> 
> Could you please explain how to do this?  I've not used Turtle Art, so
> don't presume any foreknowledge.

look at the blocks submenu, the 4th item from the left in the main menu
look at the 'flow operators' pallette the 5th item in the submenu, icon is 
circular arrows

drag 'forever' onto the canvas

from the extras pallette, 9th in the submenu, icon is cog

drag 'print' and dock it under the RHS of forever

from the sensors pallette, 7th in the submenu, icon is plug

drag 'voltage' and dock it to the right of print

click on the forever block to run

(I have just discovered a bug in the stereo channel selection, sometimes the 
left channel is voltage and the right voltage1, sometimes they swap)

> 
> Or, could you use "alsactl store" in the test state, and provide the
> file it generates.  I can then use it on "alsactl restore" and be sure
> of the same ALSA mixer configuration.

is alsactl store fails, cannot open /etc/asound/state for writing: permission 
denied

> 
> Okay, please compare with identical kernels.  There has been a bit of
> change in the audio driver.  Use uname -a to check the kernel
> revision.
> 
How do I interpret the output?

Tony
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

Re: typos fixed on firmware page

[James Cameron]

On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 11:13:16PM -0400, Kevin Gordon wrote:
> I changed the XO1.5 firmware section on the wiki firmware page
> http:// wiki.laptop.org/go/Firmware#XO-1.5 for the top two entries
> from 'Q4' to 'Q3'.  The links were for Q3, but the text said 'Q4'.
> I think it was a typo.  If not, please change back.

Looks fine, thanks.

-- 
James Cameron
http://quozl.linux.org.au/
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

Re: Recent XO-1 OFW had difficulty reading USB stick

[James Cameron]

On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 09:58:09PM -0500, Mikus Grinbergs wrote:
> p.s.  I also tried q2f11jb.rom - and nearly bricked the XO-1  (I do
> not have security deactivated).

I'm curious, why do you have security enabled?

-- 
James Cameron
http://quozl.linux.org.au/
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

typos fixed on firmware page

[Kevin Gordon]

I changed the XO1.5 firmware section on the wiki firmware page
http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Firmware#XO-1.5
  for the top two entries from 'Q4' to 'Q3'.  The links were for Q3, but
the text said 'Q4'.  I think it was a typo.  If not, please change back.

Cheers,

KG
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

Re: Re: Turtle Art sensor xo 1.75 range voltage

[James Cameron]

On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 12:36:08PM +1000, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
> > > Testing on SKU199 and SKU204, the impedance has gone from 1k to 4k
> > > and the calibration is all wrong on 204
> > 
> > Possibility of damage?  How are you measuring this, so that I can
> > reproduce on units that I believe are undamaged?
> > 
> > Are you measuring DC impedance with laptop power off, or on?  With the
> > microphone bias off or on?  With the DC mode off or on?
> 
> Thanks James
> 
> Testing is with Turtle Art V140, ie I am letting TA do the ALSA stuff, 
> setting up bias, gain etc
> 
> The turtle code is forever print voltage

Could you please explain how to do this?  I've not used Turtle Art, so
don't presume any foreknowledge.

Or, could you use "alsactl store" in the test state, and provide the
file it generates.  I can then use it on "alsactl restore" and be sure
of the same ALSA mixer configuration.

> 
> To check voltage calibration for +ve voltages and measure impedance I use the 
> existing bias (however the turtle code and ALSA have set that up) and a 
> variable resistor on the mic input.
> 
> I estimate input impedance by setting the variable resistor that results in 
> half voltage (1.5V) as measured with a multimeter.
> 
> I check voltage calibration by measuring V across the variable resistor with 
> the multimeter.
> 
> I can see a possible error in my method, SKU204 OS12 may be changing the bias 
> conditions briefly during the measurement. This does not have any effect 
> however on the calibration for 0V which is changed - in this case the source 
> impedance is zero.
> 
> > 
> > If the kernel is running, are you measuring with the same kernel?
> 
> Quite possibly not. SKU199 is running OS32 and SKU204 is running
> OS12 which I think has kernel version issues. I updated OS12 with
> olpc-update, I presume that does the kernel too.

Okay, please compare with identical kernels.  There has been a bit of
change in the audio driver.  Use uname -a to check the kernel
revision.

> 
> 
> > 
> > There are some differences against 1.5, in that there are two
> > channels, on the tip and ring of the connector respectively.  Please
> > make sure you are using a stereo plug with correct manufacturing
> > tolerances.  Test for shorting between the left and right channel pins
> > after the plug is inserted.
> 
> I thought the 1.5 was stereo too? Just the XO-1 mono?

My mistake.  I've been working on XO-1 all week.  ;-}

> I am not getting channel shorting, different results on the 2 channels.
> 
> > 
> > After the socket, there is a 470 ohm series resistor on each channel.
> > 
> > After that, reverse diodes to ground and +3.3.
> > 
> 
> Thanks for confirming

I'm not sure about the wattage of the 470 ohm resistor though, I'll
leave that to someone else to confirm.

-- 
James Cameron
http://quozl.linux.org.au/
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

Recent XO-1 OFW had difficulty reading USB stick

[Mikus Grinbergs]

DISCLAIMER:  I am not asking for help;  I'm just sharing my experiences.


With q2f11.rom on one of my vintage-1997 XO-1s, I could __not__ install 
('copy-nand') os12 (12.1.0) from an USB stick -- sooner or later OFW 
always stopped on a "file read error".  I finally flashed q2f05.rom to 
that XO-1.  Then the 'copy-nand' ran flawlessly (same USB stick).


mikus



p.s.  I also tried q2f11jb.rom - and nearly bricked the XO-1  (I do not 
have security deactivated).  Turns out q2f11jb would __not__ read my 
"permanent" SD card (which has file develop.sig on it).  And the 
previous (failed) install attempt had erased develop.sig from nand. 
Lots of fun trying to replace the q2f11jb rom with a rom that would stop 
at the ok prompt.


___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

Re: Re: Turtle Art sensor xo 1.75 range voltage

[forster]

> > Testing on SKU199 and SKU204, the impedance has gone from 1k to 4k
> > and the calibration is all wrong on 204
> 
> Possibility of damage?  How are you measuring this, so that I can
> reproduce on units that I believe are undamaged?
> 
> Are you measuring DC impedance with laptop power off, or on?  With the
> microphone bias off or on?  With the DC mode off or on?

Thanks James

Testing is with Turtle Art V140, ie I am letting TA do the ALSA stuff, setting 
up bias, gain etc

The turtle code is forever print voltage

To check voltage calibration for +ve voltages and measure impedance I use the 
existing bias (however the turtle code and ALSA have set that up) and a 
variable resistor on the mic input.

I estimate input impedance by setting the variable resistor that results in 
half voltage (1.5V) as measured with a multimeter.

I check voltage calibration by measuring V across the variable resistor with 
the multimeter.

I can see a possible error in my method, SKU204 OS12 may be changing the bias 
conditions briefly during the measurement. This does not have any effect 
however on the calibration for 0V which is changed - in this case the source 
impedance is zero.

> 
> If the kernel is running, are you measuring with the same kernel?

Quite possibly not. SKU199 is running OS32 and SKU204 is running OS12 which I 
think has kernel version issues. I updated OS12 with olpc-update, I presume 
that does the kernel too.


> 
> There are some differences against 1.5, in that there are two
> channels, on the tip and ring of the connector respectively.  Please
> make sure you are using a stereo plug with correct manufacturing
> tolerances.  Test for shorting between the left and right channel pins
> after the plug is inserted.

I thought the 1.5 was stereo too? Just the XO-1 mono?
I am not getting channel shorting, different results on the 2 channels.

> 
> After the socket, there is a 470 ohm series resistor on each channel.
> 
> After that, reverse diodes to ground and +3.3.
> 

Thanks for confirming

Tony
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

Re: Turtle Art sensor xo 1.75 range voltage

[James Cameron]

Thanks for testing, this sounds interesting.

On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 11:24:45AM +1000, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
> > We should test the calibration again.
> Walter, Guzman
> 
> Testing with TA140
> 
> It looks like the 1.75 audio circuit was changed between the
> preproduction and the ramp unit 1.75's

I don't see any change.

> Testing on SKU199 and SKU204, the impedance has gone from 1k to 4k
> and the calibration is all wrong on 204

Possibility of damage?  How are you measuring this, so that I can
reproduce on units that I believe are undamaged?

Are you measuring DC impedance with laptop power off, or on?  With the
microphone bias off or on?  With the DC mode off or on?

If the kernel is running, are you measuring with the same kernel?

> (TA calibration should be OK for the moment on preproduction SKU199)
> 
> Can laptop.org please confirm that there was an audio redesign
> between SKU199 and SKU204? Is the SKU204 design now stable or can we
> expect further changes? 

I can't confirm.

> Is the input protection the same as the 1.5: "The XO-1.5 is
> protected by a resistor,(1/16W 470 ohm SMD0402) and a pair of diodes
> to ground and to +3.3V which should protect -6V to +9V continuously,
> and up to higher voltages for shorter periods of time."
> http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Activities/TurtleArt/Using_Turtle_Art_Sensors#Specifications

There are some differences against 1.5, in that there are two
channels, on the tip and ring of the connector respectively.  Please
make sure you are using a stereo plug with correct manufacturing
tolerances.  Test for shorting between the left and right channel pins
after the plug is inserted.

After the socket, there is a 470 ohm series resistor on each channel.

After that, reverse diodes to ground and +3.3.

After this protection, there is the microphone bias supply, DC mode
switch and the codec.  All these are under software control.

-- 
James Cameron
http://quozl.linux.org.au/
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

Turtle Art sensor xo 1.75 range voltage

[forster]

> We should test the calibration again.
Walter, Guzman

Testing with TA140

It looks like the 1.75 audio circuit was changed between the preproduction and 
the ramp unit 1.75's

Testing on SKU199 and SKU204, the impedance has gone from 1k to 4k and the 
calibration is all wrong on 204

(TA calibration should be OK for the moment on preproduction SKU199)

Can laptop.org please confirm that there was an audio redesign between SKU199 
and SKU204? Is the SKU204 design now stable or can we expect further changes? 

Is the input protection the same as the 1.5: "The XO-1.5 is protected by a 
resistor,(1/16W 470 ohm SMD0402) and a pair of diodes to ground and to +3.3V 
which should protect -6V to +9V continuously, and up to higher voltages for 
shorter periods of time." 
http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Activities/TurtleArt/Using_Turtle_Art_Sensors#Specifications

Thanks
Tony
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

Re: XO battery/performance

[Samuel Greenfeld]

On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 8:07 PM, Richard A. Smith  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 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 usage :-/
>>
>
> 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.  Since he
said "os10" by today's date I'm presuming 12.1.0.

The Fedora 17 builds should be hard fp (armv7hl).  The Fedora 14-based
11.3.1 builds are not (armv5tel / armv7l kernel).
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

Re: XO battery/performance

[Richard A. Smith]

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- 
correct kernel) with the same configuration.

What was striking was that the XO-1.75 used 25% of the battery for 1 run while 
the XO-1.5 used 65% of the battery!


If you are going to do more of this then you really need a better tool 
than just the battery SOC measurement.  olpc-pwr-log can sample the 
information on a periodic basis and then my processing scripts can run 
through those logs and produce various reports.


All of my tools are in my olpc-pwrlogs repo

git://dev.laptop.org/users/rsmith/olpc-pwrlogs

Let me know if you are interested and want to know how to use the tools.


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 usage :-/


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.


--
Richard A. Smith  
One Laptop per Child
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

Re: Battery losing charge while off [Devel Digest, Vol 75, Issue 63]

[Richard A. Smith]

On 06/01/2012 10:12 AM, Yioryos Asprobounitis wrote:


Done
See attached screenshot.


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 
game button the EC should wake up briefly and the led will turn back on 
then in a few seconds go back out.


--
Richard A. Smith  
One Laptop per Child
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

Re: XO-1.5 image has more size than XO-1.0 with the same software

[Martin Langhoff]

On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Esteban Arias  wrote:
> but, XO-1.5 image has more size than XO-1.0 ¿?¿?¿?¿? Do you know why?

As others have pointed out, compression is the difference. The build
usually creates a .tar.lzma file, you can compare the size of the
tar.lzma file between the two builds.

cheers,



m
--
 martin.langh...@gmail.com
 mar...@laptop.org -- Software Architect - OLPC
 - ask interesting questions
 - don't get distracted with shiny stuff  - working code first
 - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

Re: Fwd: XO-1.5 image has more size than XO-1.0 with the same software

[Chris Ball]

Hi,

On Fri, Jun 01 2012, Daniel Drake wrote:
>> Can I compress for XO-1.5 ?
>
> If you switch to a filesystem that supports it, yes. btrfs would be one 
> option.
>
> Note that this will kill performance.

And reliability.  :-)

(Before Linux 3.4, btrfs' preferred method of dealing with a detected
filesystem inconsistency was to BUG() and hang the system, rather than
go read-only or fix the problem.)

- Chris.
-- 
Chris Ball  
One Laptop Per Child
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

Re: Fwd: XO-1.5 image has more size than XO-1.0 with the same software

[Daniel Drake]

On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Esteban Arias
 wrote:
> Can I compress for XO-1.5 ?

If you switch to a filesystem that supports it, yes. btrfs would be one option.

Note that this will kill performance.

Daniel
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

Re: Fwd: XO-1.5 image has more size than XO-1.0 with the same software

[Esteban Arias]

Can I compress for XO-1.5 ?

2012/6/1 Chris Ball 

> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Jun 01 2012, Esteban Arias wrote:
> > I have the same activities.
> > And this difference packages:
>
> Ah.  Well, one difference will be that jffs2 uses compression and ext3
> doesn't, but I wasn't expecting that to account for such a large change.
>
> - Chris.
> --
> Chris Ball  
> One Laptop Per Child
>



-- 
Esteban Arias
Investigación y Desarrollo - Centro Ceibal para el Apoyo a la Educación
de la Niñez y la Adolescencia - Plan Ceibal
Avda. Italia 6201 - Edificio Los Ceibos
Montevideo - Uruguay.
Tel.: 2601.57.73 Interno 2228
E-mail : ear...@plan.ceibal.edu.uy
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

Re: Fwd: XO-1.5 image has more size than XO-1.0 with the same software

[Chris Ball]

Hi,

On Fri, Jun 01 2012, Esteban Arias wrote:
> I have the same activities.
> And this difference packages:

Ah.  Well, one difference will be that jffs2 uses compression and ext3
doesn't, but I wasn't expecting that to account for such a large change.

- Chris.
-- 
Chris Ball  
One Laptop Per Child
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

Re: XO-1.5 image has more size than XO-1.0 with the same software

[Daniel Drake]

On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Esteban Arias
 wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have created image for XO-1.0 with gnome and XO-1.5 (2GB) with gnome.
>
> but, XO-1.5 image has more size than XO-1.0 ¿?¿?¿?¿? Do you know why?

The XO-1 filesystem (jffs2) compresses its files, and the XO-1.5
filesystem (ext4) does not.
This is why you can fit 1.3GB of files on the XO-1 NAND flash, which
is only 1GB in size.

Daniel
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

Re: Fwd: XO-1.5 image has more size than XO-1.0 with the same software

[Esteban Arias]

I have the same activities.
And this difference packages:

< kernel-2.6.35.13_xo1-20120508.1133.olpc.eb0c7a8.i586
> kernel-2.6.35.13_xo1.5-20120508.1139.olpc.eb0c7a8.i586
< libertas-usb8388-firmware-5.110.22.p23-4.fc13.noarch
> libertas-sd8686-firmware-9.70.20.p0-1.fc14.noarch
> libXaw-1.0.6-4.fc12.i686
> memtester-4.2.1-1.fc14.i686
< olpc-firmware-q2f11-1.unsigned.noarch
> olpc-firmware-q3c06-1.unsigned.noarch
> olpc-runin-tests-0.15.0-1.noarch
> xorg-x11-drv-chrome-5.74.33-9.fc14.i686
< xorg-x11-drv-geode-2.11.11-4.fc14.i686
> xterm-261-2.fc14.i686



2012/6/1 Chris Ball 

> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Jun 01 2012, Esteban Arias wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have created image for XO-1.0 with gnome and XO-1.5 (2GB) with gnome.
> >
> > but, XO-1.5 image has more size than XO-1.0 ¿?¿?¿?¿? Do you know why?
>
> Because the 1.3GB XO-1.5 image wouldn't fit on the 1.0GB XO-1 flash.
>
> I think that, for example, the XO-1 images don't have the Wikipedia
> slices included anymore; check for differences in /home/olpc/Activities.
>
> - Chris.
> --
> Chris Ball  
> One Laptop Per Child
>



-- 
Esteban Arias
Investigación y Desarrollo - Centro Ceibal para el Apoyo a la Educación
de la Niñez y la Adolescencia - Plan Ceibal
Avda. Italia 6201 - Edificio Los Ceibos
Montevideo - Uruguay.
Tel.: 2601.57.73 Interno 2228
E-mail : ear...@plan.ceibal.edu.uy
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

Re: Fwd: XO-1.5 image has more size than XO-1.0 with the same software

[Chris Ball]

Hi,

On Fri, Jun 01 2012, Esteban Arias wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have created image for XO-1.0 with gnome and XO-1.5 (2GB) with gnome.
>
> but, XO-1.5 image has more size than XO-1.0 ¿?¿?¿?¿? Do you know why? 

Because the 1.3GB XO-1.5 image wouldn't fit on the 1.0GB XO-1 flash.

I think that, for example, the XO-1 images don't have the Wikipedia
slices included anymore; check for differences in /home/olpc/Activities.

- Chris.
-- 
Chris Ball  
One Laptop Per Child
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

Fwd: XO-1.5 image has more size than XO-1.0 with the same software

[Esteban Arias]

Hi,

I have created image for XO-1.0 with gnome and XO-1.5 (2GB) with gnome.

but, XO-1.5 image has more size than XO-1.0 ¿?¿?¿?¿? Do you know why?


*XO-1.0*: df -H

S.ficheros Size   Used  Avail Use% Montado en
/dev/root  1,1G   581M   494M  55% /
tmpfs  119M78k   119M   1% /dev/shm
/tmp53M29k53M   1% /tmp
vartmp  53M   8,2k53M   1% /var/tmp
varlog  21M   111k21M   1% /var/log
/dev/sda1  2,0G   435M   1,6G  22% /media/earias

*XO-1.5*: df -H

S.ficheros Size   Used  Avail Use% Montado en
/dev/mmcblk0p2 1,9G   1,3G   535M  71% /
tmpfs  227M78k   227M   1% /dev/shm
/tmp53M29k53M   1% /tmp
vartmp  53M   8,2k53M   1% /var/tmp
varlog  21M   148k21M   1% /var/log
/dev/mmcblk0p1  65M11M51M  18% /bootpart
/dev/sda1  2,0G   435M   1,6G  22% /media/earias


Regards,
-- 
Esteban Arias
Investigación y Desarrollo - Centro Ceibal para el Apoyo a la Educación
de la Niñez y la Adolescencia - Plan Ceibal
Avda. Italia 6201 - Edificio Los Ceibos
Montevideo - Uruguay.
Tel.: 2601.57.73 Interno 2228
E-mail : ear...@plan.ceibal.edu.uy


df_H.XO-1.0
Description: Binary data


df_H.XO-1.5-2GB
Description: Binary data
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

Re: 11.3.1 release candidate 2 (build 885) released

[Bert Freudenberg]

On 30.05.2012, at 22:26, Martin Langhoff wrote:

> We're pleased to announce our second release candidate of our
> 11.3.1 software release.
> 
> This RC supports XO-1, XO-1.5 and XO-1.75.
> 
> Information and installation instructions can be found here:
> http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Release_notes/11.3.1
> 
> Quick links for those who know which files need to be grabbed and save
> to USB disks:
> 
>  http://download.laptop.org/xo-1/os/candidate/885/
>  http://download.laptop.org/xo-1.5/os/candidate/885/
>  http://download.laptop.org/xo-1.75/os/candidate/885/
> 
> This is a signed release candidate that can be installed on all XOs,
> even those with security enabled.
> 
> We're looking for testing and feedback on all aspects of the system.
> Thanks for any help you can offer, and for all the feedback that was
> received throughout development.
> 
> Please review the "Known problems" section of the release notes. Some
> documented issues are carried over from previous releases, but others
> are new.
> 
> 
> regards,

Should have been obvious but took me a while to figure out:

sudo olpc-update candidate_xo1-885

(although, judging by the previous absence of the candidate build on the rsync 
server I was the first to successfully try)

- Bert -


___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

Re: First pass of 11.3.1 release notes

[Martin Langhoff]

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 10:14 PM, Manuel Kaufmann  wrote:
> In this page [1] says that the release date for 12.1.0 is on 2 July
> 2012 and for 11.3.1 is on 1 May 2012. I think that we should change
> that :)
>
>
> [1] http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Release_notes

Well, 11.3.1 missed all its deadlines :-(

For 12.1.0 (did we mention this) we're probably slipping a couple
weeks to allow vmeta landing.

cheers,


m
-- 
 mar...@laptop.org -- Software Architect - OLPC
 - ask interesting questions
 - don't get distracted with shiny stuff  - working code first
 - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

Re: Battery losing charge while off [Devel Digest, Vol 75, Issue 63]

[Richard Smith]

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Yioryos Asprobounitis
 wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>> On 05/24/2012 11:59 PM, Yioryos Asprobounitis wrote:
>>
>> >> laptop serial number.   Was it a
>> >> pre-production XO-1 ?
>> >
>> > Both XO-1s used to test the battery are C2 machines
>> > #CSH7470023EA
>> > #SHF80701C99
>> > The batery in question is
>> > #00802091012110003588
>>
>> So let me review and see if I have all the details.
>> Seems like each new
>> email has more new details.
>>
>> - Battery does not lose charge outside the laptop.
>> - Tested the battery in 2 different laptops and the loss is
>> the same.
>> Roughly 12% overnight.
>> - A different battery in those same laptops does not lose
>> 12%
>
> Correct in all 3 (but ~12% in a 24h period)

Ah... 24 hours... Looking back you said that in the original email.
So 12% is about 370mAh which at the nominal battery voltage should be
2.2 to 2.5 Wh.  Over 24 hours that a draw of 90 to 100 mW.  Thats high
for the EC not going to into stop mode but perhaps there's enough
error in the measurement to skew the results.

My 1st guess is that something in the battery EEPROM is making the EC
unhappy and its not going into stop mode when the power is off.

Put the funky battery in the laptop and boot it.  Then stop at OFW and
do a 'bat-dump-banks'. Then send on the output.

-- 
Richard A. Smith
One Laptop per Child
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel