Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] ipw2200

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: David Brown <dmlb2000 AT gmail.com>
  • To: disk AT sourcemage.org
  • Cc: sm-discuss <sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] ipw2200
  • Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 09:34:20 -0800

> I also got ipw2200 working on my laptop but I had to swap two rules in
> the udev default rules file :

So do I :)

> SUBSYSTEM=="firmware", ACTION="add", RUN+="/lib/udev/firmware_helper"
> ENV{UDEVD_EVENT}=="1", RUN="udev_run_hotplugd $env{SUBSYSTEM}"

Actually if you are running 2.6.15 you probably should remove the
udev_run_hotplugd rule but if you are running 2.6.14 or less you
should have that rule and not have the first, at least that's what
I've noticed...

The rule I use for firmware (which works with the coldplug script) is:

ACTION=="add", SUBSYSTEM=="firmware", ENV{FIRMWARE}=="*",
RUN+="/lib/udev/firmware_helper"

We should probably make a 55-hotplug.rules file and a
55-coldplug.rules file (or something similarly named) one being for
kernels <= 2.6.14 and the other being for > 2.6.14. Redhat has a
similar setup with their rules files in the udev package.


> I had to put the firmware line before udev_run_hotplugd launching.
> Unless this order, the firmware is not loaded, and my interpretation is
> that because hotplug tries to handle the firmaware loading. That fails
> and this is not anyway what we want to do.

yeah that's what's happening, you should be able to dispel hotplug
entirely and remove the udev_run_hotplugd rule and everything should
work fine.

> Before to do this change, I just want to request your opinion about
> this. I heard that some people, like David (Brown) got this module
> working, so I would like to know if they had to use this trick or not.

yeah this trick and some others ;)

> Speaking about that, two weeks ago, I discussed with Arwed that it would
> be good to add the possibility to install different firmware versions
> with the spell ipw2200_firmware. Arwed proposed to install all versions
> (2.2, 2.3, 2.4) to match all possible kernel versions, we could also,
> alternatively, prompt the user for the version(s) via a ncurses dialog,
> or maybe only config_query since they are only three choices (defaulting
> to all).
> Thoughts ?? :)

I agree also I think we should email the guys that make the firmware
to see if we can't have the firmware on our mirror, currently it's in
z-rejected because there exists a license that you have to agree to in
order to get to the download page. The agreement is a simple: Intel
isn't liable if you fsck up your card with the driver and the
firmware...

If we mention the license in the casting of the spell I think they
would be happy to allow us as a mirror for the firmware.

Also the different versions of the firmware don't conflict with one
another so we should probably install all of them, it would be simpler
for people that don't know about the dependancy between the in-kernel
ipw2200 driver and the firmware.

- David Brown




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page