* Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 19 December 2007 09:11:02 Larry Finger wrote:
> > >
> > > or could tsc being marked as unstable have anything to do with the
> > > speed of network transfers?
> >
> > Absolutely not.
>
> Well, if the clocksource of the machine is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Larry, thanks for being so patient so far. Tomorrow I plan to take my
> laptop to somewhere with coffee and a wireless network. For now
> though, can you tell me if these messages could be related:
> PCI: Cannot allocate resource region 7 of bridge :00:05.0
> PCI:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Larry, thanks for being so patient so far. Tomorrow I plan to take my
laptop to somewhere with coffee and a wireless network. For now
though, can you tell me if these messages could be related:
PCI: Cannot allocate resource region 7 of bridge :00:05.0
PCI: Cannot
* Michael Buesch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 19 December 2007 09:11:02 Larry Finger wrote:
or could tsc being marked as unstable have anything to do with the
speed of network transfers?
Absolutely not.
Well, if the clocksource of the machine is unstable it _can_
Larry, thanks for being so patient so far. Tomorrow I plan to take my
laptop to somewhere with coffee and a wireless network. For now
though, can you tell me if these messages could be related:
PCI: Cannot allocate resource region 7 of bridge :00:05.0
PCI: Cannot allocate resource region 8 of
Larry, thanks for being so patient so far. Tomorrow I plan to take my
laptop to somewhere with coffee and a wireless network. For now
though, can you tell me if these messages could be related:
PCI: Cannot allocate resource region 7 of bridge :00:05.0
PCI: Cannot allocate resource region 8 of
On Dec 17, 2007 8:16 PM, Larry Finger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I hope that you have now convinced yourself that you should be using b43 and
> not messing around
> forcing b43legacy to use a device for which it was not intended.
>
I was convinced the moment I realized it worked exactly the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I don't know what happened before, but after a reboot, I can't repeat
> the 200 kB/s speed. It's back down to 40 kB/s, just like originally. I
> didn't move the laptop, or the ap, the only thing I can think of that
> might have changed is the noise level. FWIW, link
On Dec 17, 2007 6:18 PM, Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 18 December 2007 00:12:30 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "requires" b43, but I did say that
> > the device uses the b43 driver.
>
> Requires means requires.
>
Ok, noted.
> >
On Tuesday 18 December 2007 00:12:30 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Dec 17, 2007 5:45 PM, Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Ehm, excuse me.
> > What are you doing exactly? In this thread you told me you have
> > a device which requires b43:
> >
>
> Well, I'm not sure what you mean
On Dec 17, 2007 5:45 PM, Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ehm, excuse me.
> What are you doing exactly? In this thread you told me you have
> a device which requires b43:
>
Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "requires" b43, but I did say that
the device uses the b43 driver.
> > I
On Monday 17 December 2007 23:04:37 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Dec 17, 2007 5:35 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If this is a mac80211 related problem, then other systems connecting
> > to the same ap and using mac80211 would also be affected? Like I said
> > earlier, there are five
On Dec 17, 2007 5:35 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If this is a mac80211 related problem, then other systems connecting
> to the same ap and using mac80211 would also be affected? Like I said
> earlier, there are five machines connecting to this ap, and I just
> realized one of them has a
If this is a mac80211 related problem, then other systems connecting
to the same ap and using mac80211 would also be affected? Like I said
earlier, there are five machines connecting to this ap, and I just
realized one of them has a ralink card that uses the rt2x00 driver,
which I believe is
On Dec 17, 2007 4:49 AM, Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Are you working with wireless-2.6's #everything branch?
I've been working with vanilla wireless-2.6, but I've also tried the
everything branch as well as other trees. Just for good measure, I
just rebuilt the everything branch
On Monday 17 December 2007 08:17:58 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Dec 17, 2007 1:52 AM, Larry Finger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > One major difference between bcm43xx-SoftMAC and b43-mac80211 is that the
> > former always used a fixed
> > rate; whereas mac80211 tries to adjust the bit rate
On Monday 17 December 2007 08:17:58 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 17, 2007 1:52 AM, Larry Finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One major difference between bcm43xx-SoftMAC and b43-mac80211 is that the
former always used a fixed
rate; whereas mac80211 tries to adjust the bit rate according
On Dec 17, 2007 4:49 AM, Michael Buesch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you working with wireless-2.6's #everything branch?
I've been working with vanilla wireless-2.6, but I've also tried the
everything branch as well as other trees. Just for good measure, I
just rebuilt the everything branch and
If this is a mac80211 related problem, then other systems connecting
to the same ap and using mac80211 would also be affected? Like I said
earlier, there are five machines connecting to this ap, and I just
realized one of them has a ralink card that uses the rt2x00 driver,
which I believe is
On Dec 17, 2007 5:35 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If this is a mac80211 related problem, then other systems connecting
to the same ap and using mac80211 would also be affected? Like I said
earlier, there are five machines connecting to this ap, and I just
realized one of them has a ralink
On Monday 17 December 2007 23:04:37 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 17, 2007 5:35 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If this is a mac80211 related problem, then other systems connecting
to the same ap and using mac80211 would also be affected? Like I said
earlier, there are five machines
On Dec 17, 2007 5:45 PM, Michael Buesch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ehm, excuse me.
What are you doing exactly? In this thread you told me you have
a device which requires b43:
Well, I'm not sure what you mean by requires b43, but I did say that
the device uses the b43 driver.
I don't know
On Tuesday 18 December 2007 00:12:30 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 17, 2007 5:45 PM, Michael Buesch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ehm, excuse me.
What are you doing exactly? In this thread you told me you have
a device which requires b43:
Well, I'm not sure what you mean by requires
On Dec 17, 2007 6:18 PM, Michael Buesch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 18 December 2007 00:12:30 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, I'm not sure what you mean by requires b43, but I did say that
the device uses the b43 driver.
Requires means requires.
Ok, noted.
Sorry, I should have
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know what happened before, but after a reboot, I can't repeat
the 200 kB/s speed. It's back down to 40 kB/s, just like originally. I
didn't move the laptop, or the ap, the only thing I can think of that
might have changed is the noise level. FWIW, link
On Dec 17, 2007 8:16 PM, Larry Finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hope that you have now convinced yourself that you should be using b43 and
not messing around
forcing b43legacy to use a device for which it was not intended.
I was convinced the moment I realized it worked exactly the same as
On Dec 17, 2007 1:52 AM, Larry Finger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> One major difference between bcm43xx-SoftMAC and b43-mac80211 is that the
> former always used a fixed
> rate; whereas mac80211 tries to adjust the bit rate according to the
> transmission conditions.
> Perhaps it isn't working
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Dec 15, 2007 7:38 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'll build latest wireless git without ipv6 late tonight.
>
> Ok, built and tested, and it's actually faster! Although still not as
> fast as bcm43xx or softmac or whatever the problem is, I was getting a
> steady
On Dec 15, 2007 7:38 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'll build latest wireless git without ipv6 late tonight.
Ok, built and tested, and it's actually faster! Although still not as
fast as bcm43xx or softmac or whatever the problem is, I was getting a
steady 200 kB/s (as opposed to 500 kB/s
> > On Sun, 2007-12-16 at 00:27 +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
> > > On Sunday 16 December 2007 00:18:43 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > Well, the only problem with that is I suspect there are some "newer"
> > > > cards that
> > > > work better with v3 firmware, although they are supposed to
On Sunday, 16 of December 2007, Johannes Berg wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2007-12-16 at 00:27 +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
> > On Sunday 16 December 2007 00:18:43 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > Well, the only problem with that is I suspect there are some "newer"
> > > cards that
> > > work better with v3
On Sun, 2007-12-16 at 00:27 +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Sunday 16 December 2007 00:18:43 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > Well, the only problem with that is I suspect there are some "newer" cards
> > that
> > work better with v3 firmware, although they are supposed to support both.
On Sunday 16 December 2007 10:22:43 Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * John W. Linville <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > It's not that simple. For example, regression testing will be a
> > > major PITA if one needs to switch back and forth from the new driver
> > > to the old one in the process.
> >
On Sunday 16 December 2007 03:30:16 Larry Finger wrote:
> Michael Buesch wrote:
> > On Sunday 16 December 2007 00:18:43 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> Well, the only problem with that is I suspect there are some "newer" cards
> >> that
> >> work better with v3 firmware, although they are supposed
* John W. Linville <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It's not that simple. For example, regression testing will be a
> > major PITA if one needs to switch back and forth from the new driver
> > to the old one in the process.
>
> Not really true -- a single system can easily have firmware
On Dec 15, 2007 7:38 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll build latest wireless git without ipv6 late tonight.
Ok, built and tested, and it's actually faster! Although still not as
fast as bcm43xx or softmac or whatever the problem is, I was getting a
steady 200 kB/s (as opposed to 500 kB/s for
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 15, 2007 7:38 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll build latest wireless git without ipv6 late tonight.
Ok, built and tested, and it's actually faster! Although still not as
fast as bcm43xx or softmac or whatever the problem is, I was getting a
steady 200 kB/s
On Dec 17, 2007 1:52 AM, Larry Finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One major difference between bcm43xx-SoftMAC and b43-mac80211 is that the
former always used a fixed
rate; whereas mac80211 tries to adjust the bit rate according to the
transmission conditions.
Perhaps it isn't working quite
* John W. Linville [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's not that simple. For example, regression testing will be a
major PITA if one needs to switch back and forth from the new driver
to the old one in the process.
Not really true -- a single system can easily have firmware installed
for
On Sunday 16 December 2007 03:30:16 Larry Finger wrote:
Michael Buesch wrote:
On Sunday 16 December 2007 00:18:43 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Well, the only problem with that is I suspect there are some newer cards
that
work better with v3 firmware, although they are supposed to support
On Sunday 16 December 2007 10:22:43 Ingo Molnar wrote:
* John W. Linville [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's not that simple. For example, regression testing will be a
major PITA if one needs to switch back and forth from the new driver
to the old one in the process.
Not really
On Sun, 2007-12-16 at 00:27 +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
On Sunday 16 December 2007 00:18:43 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Well, the only problem with that is I suspect there are some newer cards
that
work better with v3 firmware, although they are supposed to support both.
Impossible. The
On Sunday, 16 of December 2007, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Sun, 2007-12-16 at 00:27 +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
On Sunday 16 December 2007 00:18:43 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Well, the only problem with that is I suspect there are some newer
cards that
work better with v3 firmware,
On Sun, 2007-12-16 at 00:27 +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
On Sunday 16 December 2007 00:18:43 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Well, the only problem with that is I suspect there are some newer
cards that
work better with v3 firmware, although they are supposed to support
both.
On Sonntag, 16. Dezember 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Saturday, 15 of December 2007, John W. Linville wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 02:25:50AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Friday, 14 of December 2007, Michael Buesch wrote:
> >
> > > > Either distributions have to install
Michael Buesch wrote:
On Sunday 16 December 2007 00:18:43 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Well, the only problem with that is I suspect there are some "newer" cards that
work better with v3 firmware, although they are supposed to support both.
And I suspect that you are wrong until you show me one.
On Sunday 16 December 2007 00:18:43 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Well, the only problem with that is I suspect there are some "newer" cards
> that
> work better with v3 firmware, although they are supposed to support both.
And I suspect that you are wrong until you show me one. :)
--
Greetings
On Saturday, 15 of December 2007, John W. Linville wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 02:25:50AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, 14 of December 2007, Michael Buesch wrote:
>
> > > Either distributions have to install it automatically or people simply
> > > have
> > > to read one or
On Saturday, 15 of December 2007, Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Saturday 15 December 2007 01:51:47 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, 14 of December 2007, Michael Buesch wrote:
> > > On Friday 14 December 2007 13:59:54 Simon Holm Thøgersen wrote:
> > > > > This user did get the following
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 02:25:50AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, 14 of December 2007, Michael Buesch wrote:
> > Either distributions have to install it automatically or people simply have
> > to read one or two lines of documentation. That's just what I wanted to
> > say.
>
>
On Dec 15, 2007 2:18 AM, Larry Finger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It will take a while to finish looking over those logs, but are you using
> ipv6? If not, please
> blacklist the ipv6 module to prevent it from loading - add the line
> 'blacklist ipv6' to file
> /etc/modprobe.d/blacklist. In
On Saturday 15 December 2007 01:51:47 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, 14 of December 2007, Michael Buesch wrote:
> > On Friday 14 December 2007 13:59:54 Simon Holm Thøgersen wrote:
> > > > This user did get the following messages in dmesg:
> > > >
> > > > b43err(dev->wl, "Firmware file
On Saturday 15 December 2007 01:51:47 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, 14 of December 2007, Michael Buesch wrote:
On Friday 14 December 2007 13:59:54 Simon Holm Thøgersen wrote:
This user did get the following messages in dmesg:
b43err(dev-wl, Firmware file \%s\ not found
On Dec 15, 2007 2:18 AM, Larry Finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It will take a while to finish looking over those logs, but are you using
ipv6? If not, please
blacklist the ipv6 module to prevent it from loading - add the line
'blacklist ipv6' to file
/etc/modprobe.d/blacklist. In some
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 02:25:50AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, 14 of December 2007, Michael Buesch wrote:
Either distributions have to install it automatically or people simply have
to read one or two lines of documentation. That's just what I wanted to
say.
It's not
On Saturday, 15 of December 2007, Michael Buesch wrote:
On Saturday 15 December 2007 01:51:47 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, 14 of December 2007, Michael Buesch wrote:
On Friday 14 December 2007 13:59:54 Simon Holm Thøgersen wrote:
This user did get the following messages in dmesg:
On Saturday, 15 of December 2007, John W. Linville wrote:
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 02:25:50AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, 14 of December 2007, Michael Buesch wrote:
Either distributions have to install it automatically or people simply
have
to read one or two lines of
On Sunday 16 December 2007 00:18:43 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Well, the only problem with that is I suspect there are some newer cards
that
work better with v3 firmware, although they are supposed to support both.
And I suspect that you are wrong until you show me one. :)
--
Greetings
Michael Buesch wrote:
On Sunday 16 December 2007 00:18:43 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Well, the only problem with that is I suspect there are some newer cards that
work better with v3 firmware, although they are supposed to support both.
And I suspect that you are wrong until you show me one. :)
On Sonntag, 16. Dezember 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, 15 of December 2007, John W. Linville wrote:
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 02:25:50AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, 14 of December 2007, Michael Buesch wrote:
Either distributions have to install it
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 14, 2007 11:37 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'll attach these logs since I can't read much into them.
I should do what I say...
It will take a while to finish looking over those logs, but are you using ipv6? If not, please
blacklist the ipv6 module to
On Dec 14, 2007 9:27 PM, Larry Finger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I suspect that mac80211 is doing something that your router does not like. Do
> you have any chance to
> capture the traffic between your computer and the router by using a second
> wireless computer running
> kismet or
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could this be the reason my BCM94311MCG rev 1 receives such terrible
performance with b43 but works well with bcm43xx? The device is
802.11b/g but my router is 802.11b. I filed a report on this issue
here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=413291
No. On my
On Dec 14, 2007 7:58 PM, Larry Finger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > Actually, can you explain why, from the technical point of view, the
> > version 4
> > firware is better than version 3, please?
>
> I will be very interested in Michael's answer to this question;
On Friday, 14 of December 2007, Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Friday 14 December 2007 18:59:10 Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > In my opinion this all is the work of the distributions and not the
> > > work of the kernel developers. Distributions
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Actually, can you explain why, from the technical point of view, the version 4
firware is better than version 3, please?
I will be very interested in Michael's answer to this question; however, my experience is that it
doesn't make much difference if your device is
On Friday, 14 of December 2007, Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Friday 14 December 2007 13:59:54 Simon Holm Thøgersen wrote:
> > > This user did get the following messages in dmesg:
> > >
> > > b43err(dev->wl, "Firmware file \"%s\" not found "
> > >"or load failed.\n", path);
> >
> > So the
On Dec 14, 2007 12:13 PM, Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ray, I _do_ want to understand what is going on in your machine.
> I _have_ to understand it. But I currently do not understand how the
> quoted patch could fix modprobe of b43 or rfkill. I'd simply call that
> impossible.
Then
On Friday 14 December 2007 20:55:43 Ray Lee wrote:
> Oh. My. God.
>
> Michael. I have a degree in Physics. I placed sixth in the world
> finals of the ACM Collegiate programming contest in 1999, Cal Poly
> Team Gold. ( http://icpc.baylor.edu/past/icpc99/Finals/Tour/Win/Win.html
> , I'm the guy
On Dec 14, 2007 11:38 AM, Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 14 December 2007 20:25:39 Ray Lee wrote:
> > > I'm sorry. The patch that _you_ quoted fixes a blinking LED
> > > and nothing else.
> >
> > Well, you're wrong. Sorry, but that's just the way it is. See below.
> >
> > >
On Friday 14 December 2007 20:25:39 Ray Lee wrote:
> > I'm sorry. The patch that _you_ quoted fixes a blinking LED
> > and nothing else.
>
> Well, you're wrong. Sorry, but that's just the way it is. See below.
>
> > It does _not_ fix loading of rfkill or b43 in any way.
> > It does, however, fix
On Dec 14, 2007 11:05 AM, Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 14 December 2007 19:45:02 Ray Lee wrote:
> > > > One problem related to b43 source code, patch exists, has yet to be
> > > > merged upstream.
> > >
> > > Yeah. A problem preventing a LED from blinking.
> > > That's a
On Friday 14 December 2007 19:45:02 Ray Lee wrote:
> > > One problem related to b43 source code, patch exists, has yet to be
> > > merged upstream.
> >
> > Yeah. A problem preventing a LED from blinking.
> > That's a real regression Come on. Stop that bullshit.
>
> I'm going to say this one
On Dec 14, 2007 10:11 AM, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Ray Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Now I'm going to go off, sit in the sun, sip some coffee, and think
> > happy thoughts of kittens playing with yarn for a while.
>
> ok, and given the time-shift and apparent season-shift
I've run out of time to donate to the kernel today, so I'll keep this short.
On Dec 14, 2007 10:22 AM, Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > If you have a PCI device probing works as follows:
> > > The PCI table is in ssb. So as soon as your kernel detects the PCI device
> > > it will
On Friday 14 December 2007 18:59:10 Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In my opinion this all is the work of the distributions and not the
> > work of the kernel developers. Distributions have to make sure that
> > everything works after a kernel update.
On Friday 14 December 2007 19:01:51 Ray Lee wrote:
> No, I don't have module autoloading disabled. modprobe-ing b43
> automatically loads ssb. Neither, however, will load rfkill or
> rfkill-input. And if they aren't loaded, then b43/ssb are *completely*
> silent during load. Nothing to dmesg at
* Ray Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now I'm going to go off, sit in the sun, sip some coffee, and think
> happy thoughts of kittens playing with yarn for a while.
ok, and given the time-shift and apparent season-shift i'll sit in the
evening, watch the snowfall and think happy thoughts of
On Dec 14, 2007 8:49 AM, Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 14 December 2007 17:06:39 Ray Lee wrote:
> > Hi all. Perhaps I can inject some facts into this?
> >
> > On Dec 14, 2007 5:08 AM, Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > This user did get the following
* Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In my opinion this all is the work of the distributions and not the
> work of the kernel developers. Distributions have to make sure that
> everything works after a kernel update. [...]
actually, not. The the task of kernel developers is to KEEP
On Dec 14, 2007 8:59 AM, Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What if you want to compile your own kernel? Well, then you are on
> your own anyway. You have to track kernel changes anyway.
I'm trying to help you test your code before it goes out to the
unsuspecting masses. Do you think I
On Friday 14 December 2007 17:45:52 Ray Lee wrote:
> On Dec 14, 2007 8:27 AM, Ray Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Dec 14, 2007 6:40 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Agreed. As a b43legacy maintainer, I'd be happy to know if Ingo
> > > suggests other ways to smooth out the transition. I
On Friday 14 December 2007 17:06:39 Ray Lee wrote:
> Hi all. Perhaps I can inject some facts into this?
>
> On Dec 14, 2007 5:08 AM, Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > This user did get the following messages in dmesg:
> > > >
> > > > b43err(dev->wl, "Firmware file \"%s\" not found
On Dec 14, 2007 8:27 AM, Ray Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 14, 2007 6:40 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Agreed. As a b43legacy maintainer, I'd be happy to know if Ingo
> > suggests other ways to smooth out the transition. I haven't read
> > proposals yet.
>
> This isn't rocket
On Dec 14, 2007 6:40 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Agreed. As a b43legacy maintainer, I'd be happy to know if Ingo
> suggests other ways to smooth out the transition. I haven't read
> proposals yet.
This isn't rocket science guys. Put a file in somewhere in your tree
called
Hi all. Perhaps I can inject some facts into this?
On Dec 14, 2007 5:08 AM, Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > This user did get the following messages in dmesg:
> > >
> > > b43err(dev->wl, "Firmware file \"%s\" not found "
> > >"or load failed.\n", path);
> > > b43err(wl,
"John W. Linville" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 11:56:24AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh come on. b43 is more than a year old now. How long should we wait?
> Two or three? Forever?
possibly forever, if you dont get obvious
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 11:56:24AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Oh come on. b43 is more than a year old now. How long should we wait?
> > Two or three? Forever?
>
> possibly forever, if you dont get obvious regressions like "my wlan does
> not
On Friday 14 December 2007 13:53:27 Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > This user did get the following messages in dmesg:
> >
> > b43err(dev->wl, "Firmware file \"%s\" not found "
> >"or load failed.\n", path);
> > b43err(wl, "You must go to "
> >
On Friday 14 December 2007 13:59:54 Simon Holm Thøgersen wrote:
> > This user did get the following messages in dmesg:
> >
> > b43err(dev->wl, "Firmware file \"%s\" not found "
> >"or load failed.\n", path);
>
> So the question seems to be why b43 needs version 4, when b43legacy and
>
fre, 14 12 2007 kl. 13:31 +0100, skrev Michael Buesch:
> On Friday 14 December 2007 13:16:17 Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > > The testers who did nothing but reported that the new driver did not
> > > > work on their hardware.
> > >
> > >
* Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This user did get the following messages in dmesg:
>
> b43err(dev->wl, "Firmware file \"%s\" not found "
>"or load failed.\n", path);
> b43err(wl, "You must go to "
>"http://linuxwireless.org/en/users/Drivers/b43#devicefirmware "
>
On Friday 14 December 2007 13:16:17 Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > The testers who did nothing but reported that the new driver did not
> > > work on their hardware.
> >
> > Which testers?
>
> right in this thread Ray Lee is reporting:
>
> | |
* Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The testers who did nothing but reported that the new driver did not
> > work on their hardware.
>
> Which testers?
right in this thread Ray Lee is reporting:
| | Digging a little farther into it, it looks like b43 is barfing
| | partway
On Friday 14 December 2007 12:15:34 Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > So you volunteer to maintain bcm43xx? Fine. Thanks a lot.
>
> it's sad that you are trying to force testers to upgrade to your new
> driver by threatening to unsupport the old driver.
I dropped maintainance for bcm43xx over a year ago.
* Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 14 December 2007 02:12:25 Ray Lee wrote:
> > Digging a little farther into it, it looks like b43 is barfing partway
> > through init as the firmware file it's looking for has changed names.
> > Perhaps that's the issue. I'll take a longer
* Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > (eth0 is ethernet, eth1 doesn't exist -- usually it's the wireless.)
> >
> > `ifconfig` doesn't see eth1 or wlan0_rename.
> >
> > What else might I be doing wrong?
>
> I don't know. Try ifconfig -a Or tell udev to not crap up your device
>
On Friday 14 December 2007 02:12:25 Ray Lee wrote:
> Digging a little farther into it, it looks like b43 is barfing partway
> through init as the firmware file it's looking for has changed names.
> Perhaps that's the issue. I'll take a longer look at this all
> tomorrow.
On Friday 14 December 2007 01:55:50 Harvey Harrison wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-12-14 at 01:43 +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
> > Oh come on. b43 is more than a year old now. How long should we wait?
> > Two or three? Forever?
> >
>
> Any pointers to the advantages of b43?
* Michael Buesch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(eth0 is ethernet, eth1 doesn't exist -- usually it's the wireless.)
`ifconfig` doesn't see eth1 or wlan0_rename.
What else might I be doing wrong?
I don't know. Try ifconfig -a Or tell udev to not crap up your device
names.
1 - 100 of 164 matches
Mail list logo
