On Friday 15 July 2011 14:31:07 Roman Shishkin wrote:
> Source code avaliable of course, but I need just the binary of 1.9.4.
> Probably lot of casual linux users needs this binary too :)
Oh no, the firmware is supposed to be shipped by the distribution and
not "installed by hand". After all, they provide compiled and fully tested
packages for kernel+driver+userland and in doing so verify that no
malicious code compromises the system's security.
> I want to check new version at first rather than discuss about my
> dongles bug.
wait... how come you know that the new version might fix a bug?
Furthermore, how do you know that it's a bug in the first place,
what's your reference and how do you test it?
Regards,
Chr
On 07/15/2011 03:16 PM, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> Quoting Christian Lamparter <[email protected]>:
>
>> So, since you already have a working version, why simply put it on the
>> wiki?
>
> Yes, I have a working version now (compiled with all defaults) and I'll
> try to upload it myself.
Oh well, I can upload it to wiki, but not to your page at
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/chr/carl9170/fw/
That page is linked to on
http://linuxwireless.org/en/users/Drivers/carl9170.fw
I don't want to setup an alternative competing repository for carl9170
firmwares.
The wiki allows attachments, so I uploaded the firmware as an
attachment. First I put is on the main carl9170 page, but it turned out
that MoinMoin doesn't appear to have any way to specify the attachment
name in the link. Since I called the attachment "carl9170-1.fw-1.9.4",
it would only download under that name, rather than as "carl9170-1.fw".
I don't want to call the attachment "carl9170-1.fw" since nobody,
including me, would be able to replace it with another version ever.
So I created a separate wiki page for the 1.9.4 version of the firmware
and attached the firmware to it as "carl9170-1.fw". That's an
equivalent of having directories with files having the same name.
The carl9170 page recommends 1.9.2 for all kernels up to 3.0. The 1.9.4
is recommended for compat-wireless. If that's not your recommendation,
please feel free to update the wiki.
I was able to verify that carl9170 from the Fedora kernel
2.6.38.8-35.fc15.x86_64 works with firmware 1.9.4, even though it
complains about unsupported features:
[ 117.159395] usb 1-7: driver API: 1.9.0 2010-10-29 [1-1]
[ 117.164830] usb 1-7: firmware API: 1.9.4 2011-06-30
[ 117.169740] usb 1-7: Unprotected firmware image.
[ 117.174375] usb 1-7: driver does not support all firmware features.
Perhaps we could recommend 1.9.4 for more kernels?
Also, it would be nice to have the 1.9.4 firmware on
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/chr/carl9170/fw/
--
Regards,
Pavel Roskin
On Fri, 2011-07-15 at 18:49 -0400, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> The wiki allows attachments, so I uploaded the firmware as an
> attachment. First I put is on the main carl9170 page, but it turned out
> that MoinMoin doesn't appear to have any way to specify the attachment
> name in the link. Since I called the attachment "carl9170-1.fw-1.9.4",
> it would only download under that name, rather than as "carl9170-1.fw".
> I don't want to call the attachment "carl9170-1.fw" since nobody,
> including me, would be able to replace it with another version ever.
FWIW, the only reason you can't delete attachments right now is that
they aren't versioned, so if somebody deletes a file we can never get it
back... It _is_ possible to delete things again though.
johannes
On 07/15/2011 09:09 AM, Christian Lamparter wrote:
> On Friday 15 July 2011 14:31:07 Roman Shishkin wrote:
>> Source code avaliable of course, but I need just the binary of 1.9.4.
>> Probably lot of casual linux users needs this binary too :)
> Oh no, the firmware is supposed to be shipped by the distribution and
> not "installed by hand". After all, they provide compiled and fully tested
> packages for kernel+driver+userland and in doing so verify that no
> malicious code compromises the system's security.
Christian, I think the latest firmware needs to be on the site. I
understand that you want to keep the entry barrier high, but it's
hurting wrong people.
I made some changes to the ath module and wanted to make a quick check
that carl9170 is OK. First I found that the 1.9.2 firmware won't work
with wireless-testing. Then I found that the binary is not there. Then
I downloaded the sources and ran "make -C toolchain". After a long
download, I got
configure: error: Building GCC requires GMP 4.2+, MPFR 2.3.1+ and MPC
0.8.0+.
Try the --with-gmp, --with-mpfr and/or --with-mpc options to specify
No big deal, I'll need to install some libraries and restart make. But
that's more time to spend on something I thought would take minutes.
And I'll have to keep the toolchain somewhere if I want to compile
future version of the firmware.
At this point I start having doubts whether it's easier just to look at
my changes more carefully and send them.
I was complaining recently that AR5210 hard to get to work (it only
works on old motherboards), but I think I can get it to work faster than
AR9170.
Not providing the binary hurts potential tester and contributors.
--
Regards,
Pavel Roskin
On Friday 15 July 2011 19:02:55 Pavel Roskin wrote:
> On 07/15/2011 09:09 AM, Christian Lamparter wrote:
> > On Friday 15 July 2011 14:31:07 Roman Shishkin wrote:
> >> Source code avaliable of course, but I need just the binary of 1.9.4.
> >> Probably lot of casual linux users needs this binary too :)
> > Oh no, the firmware is supposed to be shipped by the distribution and
> > not "installed by hand". After all, they provide compiled and fully tested
> > packages for kernel+driver+userland and in doing so verify that no
> > malicious code compromises the system's security.
>
> Christian, I think the latest firmware needs to be on the site. I
> understand that you want to keep the entry barrier high, but it's
> hurting wrong people.
> [...]
> But that's more time to spend on something I thought would take minutes.
> And I'll have to keep the toolchain somewhere if I want to compile
> future version of the firmware.
>
> I was complaining recently that AR5210 hard to get to work (it only
> works on old motherboards), but I think I can get it to work faster than
> AR9170.
>
> Not providing the binary hurts potential tester and contributors.
??? [high entry barrier? no, that theory is something you just made up]
Anyway, pretty much everyone can compile, test and upload their own
favorite firmware on the wiki site. In fact, this is what the site is for, right?
So, since you already have a working version, why simply put it on the
wiki? Or do you really prefer to argue with some uncooperative fool
instead?
On Saturday 16 July 2011 00:49:00 Pavel Roskin wrote:
> On 07/15/2011 03:16 PM, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> > Quoting Christian Lamparter <[email protected]>:
> >> So, since you already have a working version, why simply put it on the
> >> wiki?
> >
> > Yes, I have a working version now (compiled with all defaults) and I'll
> > try to upload it myself.
>
> Oh well, I can upload it to wiki, but not to your page at
> http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/chr/carl9170/fw/
The question is, is kernel.org really a good address to host those firmwares.
especially in a personal folder.
> I don't want to setup an alternative competing repository for carl9170
> firmwares. Also, it would be nice to have the 1.9.4 firmware on
> http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/chr/carl9170/fw/
I would rather have them on wireless.kernel.org. Just like the ath9k_htc
firmware.
> The wiki allows attachments, so I uploaded the firmware as an
> attachment. First I put is on the main carl9170 page, but it turned out
> that MoinMoin doesn't appear to have any way to specify the attachment
> name in the link. Since I called the attachment "carl9170-1.fw-1.9.4",
> it would only download under that name, rather than as "carl9170-1.fw".
> I don't want to call the attachment "carl9170-1.fw" since nobody,
> including me, would be able to replace it with another version ever.
>
> So I created a separate wiki page for the 1.9.4 version of the firmware
> and attached the firmware to it as "carl9170-1.fw". That's an
> equivalent of having directories with files having the same name.
Good thinking, we could add a changelog, the configuration and
some infos like supported features [e.g.: number of supported virtual
interfaces, supported WoWLAN triggers, etc...] to the same page.
> The carl9170 page recommends 1.9.2 for all kernels up to 3.0. The 1.9.4
> is recommended for compat-wireless. If that's not your recommendation,
> please feel free to update the wiki.
oh no, this should be just fine.
Thanks,
Christian
Quoting Christian Lamparter <[email protected]>:
>> Oh well, I can upload it to wiki, but not to your page at
>> http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/chr/carl9170/fw/
> The question is, is kernel.org really a good address to host those firmwares.
> especially in a personal folder.
>
>> I don't want to setup an alternative competing repository for carl9170
>> firmwares. Also, it would be nice to have the 1.9.4 firmware on
>> http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/chr/carl9170/fw/
>
> I would rather have them on wireless.kernel.org. Just like the ath9k_htc
> firmware.
I don't have access to http://wireless.kernel.org/download/ but I
think you can get it as the maintainer of carl9170.
>> So I created a separate wiki page for the 1.9.4 version of the firmware
>> and attached the firmware to it as "carl9170-1.fw". That's an
>> equivalent of having directories with files having the same name.
> Good thinking, we could add a changelog, the configuration and
> some infos like supported features [e.g.: number of supported virtual
> interfaces, supported WoWLAN triggers, etc...] to the same page.
I think it would be better to have one page for all versions, unless
there are huge changes in every release :)
What I created is just a trick to allow the firmware to be downloaded
under the same name that the driver is looking for.
>> The carl9170 page recommends 1.9.2 for all kernels up to 3.0. The 1.9.4
>> is recommended for compat-wireless. If that's not your recommendation,
>> please feel free to update the wiki.
> oh no, this should be just fine.
Good.
--
Regards,
Pavel Roskin
Quoting Christian Lamparter <[email protected]>:
> So, since you already have a working version, why simply put it on the
> wiki?
Yes, I have a working version now (compiled with all defaults) and
I'll try to upload it myself.
--
Regards,
Pavel Roskin