On 2/6/07, Ja'far Railton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think HAL can return such a large error code, there must be
> something out of sync. Can you post the full dmesg?
(First, I think there may have been a problem with the TERM setting.
I have it back on cons25 now. I don't know if tha
> I don't think HAL can return such a large error code, there must be
> something out of sync. Can you post the full dmesg?
(First, I think there may have been a problem with the TERM setting.
I have it back on cons25 now. I don't know if that could have been
responsible for the weird HAL error.)
On 2/5/07, Ja'far Railton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 11:13:25AM +0800, Sepherosa Ziehau wrote:
> On 2/5/07, Ja'far Railton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I am pleased to report an improvement with this patch. I used the
> >example from the DF handbook - there isn't any acce
On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 11:13:25AM +0800, Sepherosa Ziehau wrote:
> On 2/5/07, Ja'far Railton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I am pleased to report an improvement with this patch. I used the
> >example from the DF handbook - there isn't any access point available yet.
>
> Do you mean ath(4) does not
On 2/5/07, Ja'far Railton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I am pleased to report an improvement with this patch. I used the
example from the DF handbook - there isn't any access point available yet.
Do you mean ath(4) does not associate?
~ > sudo ifconfig ath0 inet 192.168.0.20 netmask 255.255.25
On Sun, Feb 04, 2007 at 07:57:21PM +0800, Sepherosa Ziehau wrote:
> On 2/4/07, Ja'far Railton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Sun, Feb 04, 2007 at 12:07:50PM +0800, Sepherosa Ziehau wrote:
> >> On 2/3/07, Ja'far Railton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 07:55:24PM +0800, Sep
On 2/4/07, Ja'far Railton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, Feb 04, 2007 at 12:07:50PM +0800, Sepherosa Ziehau wrote:
> On 2/3/07, Ja'far Railton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 07:55:24PM +0800, Sepherosa Ziehau wrote:
> >CIS reading done
> >ath0: mem 0x8801-0x8801fff
On Sun, Feb 04, 2007 at 12:07:50PM +0800, Sepherosa Ziehau wrote:
> On 2/3/07, Ja'far Railton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 07:55:24PM +0800, Sepherosa Ziehau wrote:
> >CIS reading done
> >ath0: mem 0x8801-0x8801 irq 11 at device 0.0 on
> >cardbus0
> >ath0: unable t
On 2/3/07, Ja'far Railton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 07:55:24PM +0800, Sepherosa Ziehau wrote:
CIS reading done
ath0: mem 0x8801-0x8801 irq 11 at device 0.0 on
cardbus0
ath0: unable to attach hardware; HAL status 3
device_probe_and_attach: ath0 attach returned 6
On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 07:55:24PM +0800, Sepherosa Ziehau wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Following is a patch updating ath(4) to the latest hal:
> http://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/~sephe/ath0.9.20.3.diff
>
> This patch is against src/sys
>
> For HEAD users, this patch should be applied cleanly.
>
> For 1.8 user
Hi all,
Following is a patch updating ath(4) to the latest hal:
http://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/~sephe/ath0.9.20.3.diff
This patch is against src/sys
For HEAD users, this patch should be applied cleanly.
For 1.8 users, you probably need to apply following patch first:
http://leaf.dragonflybsd.org
11 matches
Mail list logo