unable to write flashrom, functionality broken?

unable to write flashrom, functionality broken?

[Dale Walsh]

I had a hard drive failure which forced me to perform a fresh/clean  
installation of ubuntu 10 on a new drive since the old drive no  
longer functions (it was rather old).

My use of the b43 software is only for modification of the PCI ID's  
of the flashrom and the original installation was provided to me on  
the HD.

Now I am unable to write the flashrom after the new installation it  
always reports "write error: Operation Not Supported" and this is  
using the same cards I was flashing before, I even tried using a  
previously modified card and I get the same failure.

Since it worked before I can only conclude that the new software is  
broken and the ability to write is a requirement, can someone help me  
resolve this please.

-- Dale



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/b43-dev/attachments/20110201/90d5750c/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/b43-dev/attachments/20110201/90d5750c/attachment.sig>

unable to write flashrom, functionality broken?

[Rafał Miłecki]

2011/2/1 Dale Walsh <dale@daleenterprise.com>:
> I had a hard drive failure which forced me to perform a fresh/clean
> installation of ubuntu 10 on a new drive since the old drive no longer
> functions (it was rather old).
> My use of the b43 software is only for modification of the PCI ID's of the
> flashrom and the original installation was provided to me on the HD.
> Now I am unable to write the flashrom after the new installation it always
> reports "write error: Operation Not Supported" and this is using the same
> cards I was flashing before, I even tried using a?previously?modified card
> and I get the same failure.
> Since it worked before I can only conclude that the new software is broken
> and the ability to write is a requirement, can someone help me resolve this
> please.

Do you mean ssb driver functionality? I remember Michael was fixing
writing some time ago:

commit e33761e6f23881de9f3ee77cc2204ab2e26f3d9a
Author: Michael Buesch <mb@bu3sch.de>
Date:   Mon Nov 23 20:58:06 2009 +0100

    ssb: Fix range check in sprom write

    The range check in the sprom image parser hex2sprom() is broken.
    One sprom word is 4 hex characters.
    This fixes the check and also adds much better sanity checks to the code.
    We better make sure the image is OK by doing some sanity checks to avoid
    bricking the device by accident.

    Signed-off-by: Michael Buesch <mb@bu3sch.de>
    Cc: stable at kernel.org
    Signed-off-by: John W. Linville <linville@tuxdriver.com>

commit 3ba6018aa314559c5867138a8173b068268a70db
Author: Michael Buesch <mb@bu3sch.de>
Date:   Mon Nov 23 20:12:13 2009 +0100

    ssb: Fix SPROM writing

    The SPROM writing routines were broken since we rewrote the suspend
    handling on wireless devices, because SPROM writing depended on suspend.

    This patch changes it and freezes devices with the driver remove(), probe()
    callbacks instead. This also simplifies the whole logics a lot.

    Signed-off-by: Michael Buesch <mb@bu3sch.de>
    Signed-off-by: John W. Linville <linville@tuxdriver.com>

Do you have that patches in your kernel?

-- 
Rafa?

unable to write flashrom, functionality broken?

[Ehud Gavron]

On 02/01/2011 04:23 AM, Dale Walsh wrote:
> I had a hard drive failure which forced me to perform a fresh/clean installation of ubuntu 10 on a new drive since the old drive 
> no longer functions (it was rather old).
>
> My use of the b43 software is only for modification of the PCI ID's of the flashrom and the original installation was provided to 
> me on the HD.
>
> Now I am unable to write the flashrom after the new installation it always reports "write error: Operation Not Supported" and this 
> is using the same cards I was flashing before, I even tried using a previously modified card and I get the same failure.
>
> Since it worked before I can only conclude that the new software is broken and the ability to write is a requirement, can someone 
> help me resolve this please.
>
> -- Dale
>
>
Rafal covered some commits but I'm confused why you don't restore your backup and see why that works and your current system doesn't.

Best regards,

Ehud Gavron
Tucson AZ US SOL3

>
>
> _______________________________________________
> b43-dev mailing list
> b43-dev at lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/b43-dev

-- 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/b43-dev/attachments/20110201/e09c6b66/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ehudwetworkcontactqrcode.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1007 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/b43-dev/attachments/20110201/e09c6b66/attachment.png>

unable to write flashrom, functionality broken?

[Larry Finger]

On 02/01/2011 05:23 AM, Dale Walsh wrote:
> I had a hard drive failure which forced me to perform a fresh/clean
> installation of ubuntu 10 on a new drive since the old drive no longer
> functions (it was rather old).
> 
> My use of the b43 software is only for modification of the PCI ID's of
> the flashrom and the original installation was provided to me on the HD.
> 
> Now I am unable to write the flashrom after the new installation it
> always reports "write error: Operation Not Supported" and this is using
> the same cards I was flashing before, I even tried using
> a previously modified card and I get the same failure.
> 
> Since it worked before I can only conclude that the new software is
> broken and the ability to write is a requirement, can someone help me
> resolve this please.

I do not doubt that the SPROM writing function is broken, but I wonder why you
are needing it now. Why was it necessary to rewrite the SPROM in the first
place? Once that was done, then it should never need to be done again. Please
explain what you did and what you are doing now.

Larry

unable to write flashrom, functionality broken?

[Dale Walsh]

On Feb 01, 2011, at 11:28 AM, Larry Finger wrote:

> On 02/01/2011 05:23 AM, Dale Walsh wrote:
>> I had a hard drive failure which forced me to perform a fresh/clean
>> installation of ubuntu 10 on a new drive since the old drive no  
>> longer
>> functions (it was rather old).
>>
>> My use of the b43 software is only for modification of the PCI  
>> ID's of
>> the flashrom and the original installation was provided to me on  
>> the HD.
>>
>> Now I am unable to write the flashrom after the new installation it
>> always reports "write error: Operation Not Supported" and this is  
>> using
>> the same cards I was flashing before, I even tried using
>> a previously modified card and I get the same failure.
>>
>> Since it worked before I can only conclude that the new software is
>> broken and the ability to write is a requirement, can someone help me
>> resolve this please.
>
> I do not doubt that the SPROM writing function is broken, but I  
> wonder why you
> are needing it now. Why was it necessary to rewrite the SPROM in  
> the first
> place? Once that was done, then it should never need to be done  
> again. Please
> explain what you did and what you are doing now.

Since not all cards are created equal I take a card with specific  
features and functionality, change the ID's to my own for use with my  
own custom drivers which provides added functionality for cards with  
my ID's.

If the cards do not have my ID's they have the basic functionality  
that people are used to seeing, with my ID's they have the ability to  
run in simultaneous dual band mode (2.4ghz and 5ghz adhoc) and I use  
these ID's to ensure that the drivers only work on cards I approve.

My only need for linux is to rebrand the cards with my ID's.

If I understood enough about the write mechanism I would forego the  
b43 code all together and create an app that reads and writes the  
flashrom but the time involved  in sifting through the ubuntu code  
due to it's source structure makes it a daunting task that turns me off.


As before when working in the original installation (provided to me  
as a working installation) I would do the following: (both cat and cp  
fail)


sudo su; # become root to avoid permission issues

cd /PATH TO DIR OF ssb_sprom; # I verify ssb_sprom exists in this  
location

rmmod b43; # unload the driver

cat updated_sprom >ssb_sprom; # write the updated file


This results in write failure under the new installation.


cp updated_sprom >ssb_sprom


This also results in a write failure under the new installation.

>
> Larry
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/b43-dev/attachments/20110202/03c4f448/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/b43-dev/attachments/20110202/03c4f448/attachment.sig>

unable to write flashrom, functionality broken?

[Larry Finger]

On 02/02/2011 01:50 AM, Dale Walsh wrote:
> On Feb 01, 2011, at 11:28 AM, Larry Finger wrote:
> 
>> On 02/01/2011 05:23 AM, Dale Walsh wrote:
>>> I had a hard drive failure which forced me to perform a fresh/clean
>>> installation of ubuntu 10 on a new drive since the old drive no longer
>>> functions (it was rather old).
>>>
>>> My use of the b43 software is only for modification of the PCI ID's of
>>> the flashrom and the original installation was provided to me on the HD.
>>>
>>> Now I am unable to write the flashrom after the new installation it
>>> always reports "write error: Operation Not Supported" and this is using
>>> the same cards I was flashing before, I even tried using
>>> a previously modified card and I get the same failure.
>>>
>>> Since it worked before I can only conclude that the new software is
>>> broken and the ability to write is a requirement, can someone help me
>>> resolve this please.
>>
>> I do not doubt that the SPROM writing function is broken, but I wonder
>> why you
>> are needing it now. Why was it necessary to rewrite the SPROM in the first
>> place? Once that was done, then it should never need to be done again.
>> Please
>> explain what you did and what you are doing now.
> 
> Since not all cards are created equal I take a card with specific
> features and functionality, change the ID's to my own for use with my
> own custom drivers which provides added functionality for cards with my
> ID's.
> 
> If the cards do not have my ID's they have the basic functionality that
> people are used to seeing, with my ID's they have the ability to run
> in simultaneous dual band mode (2.4ghz and 5ghz adhoc) and I use these
> ID's to ensure that the drivers only work on cards I approve.
> 
> My only need for linux is to rebrand the cards with my ID's.
> 
> If I understood enough about the write mechanism I would forego the b43
> code all together and create an app that reads and writes the flashrom
> but the time involved  in sifting through the ubuntu code due to it's
> source structure makes it a daunting task that turns me off.
> 
> 
> As before when working in the original installation (provided to me as a
> working installation) I would do the following: (both cat and cp fail)
> 
> 
> sudo su; # become root to avoid permission issues
> 
> cd /PATH TO DIR OF ssb_sprom; # I verify ssb_sprom exists in this location
> 
> rmmod b43; # unload the driver
> 
> cat updated_sprom >ssb_sprom; # write the updated file
> 
> 
> This results in write failure under the new installation.
> 
> 
> cp updated_sprom >ssb_sprom
> 
> 
> This also results in a write failure under the new installation.

I'm a little confused as the PCI IDs are not in the SPROM. Using the procedure
you describe, you would be unable to change them.

You say you use Ubuntu 10. Is it 10.04 or 10.10? The earlier one uses kernel
2.6.32, which I have not tested; however, I did try kernels 2.6.34 and 2.6.38.
Both could write the SPROM for a Cardbus device without any problem.

Larry

unable to write flashrom, functionality broken?

[Dale Walsh]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Feb 02, 2011, at 22:27 PM, Larry Finger wrote:

> On 02/02/2011 01:50 AM, Dale Walsh wrote:
>> On Feb 01, 2011, at 11:28 AM, Larry Finger wrote:
>>
>>> On 02/01/2011 05:23 AM, Dale Walsh wrote:
>>>> I had a hard drive failure which forced me to perform a fresh/clean
>>>> installation of ubuntu 10 on a new drive since the old drive no  
>>>> longer
>>>> functions (it was rather old).
>>>>
>>>> My use of the b43 software is only for modification of the PCI  
>>>> ID's of
>>>> the flashrom and the original installation was provided to me on  
>>>> the HD.
>>>>
>>>> Now I am unable to write the flashrom after the new installation it
>>>> always reports "write error: Operation Not Supported" and this  
>>>> is using
>>>> the same cards I was flashing before, I even tried using
>>>> a previously modified card and I get the same failure.
>>>>
>>>> Since it worked before I can only conclude that the new software is
>>>> broken and the ability to write is a requirement, can someone  
>>>> help me
>>>> resolve this please.
>>>
>>> I do not doubt that the SPROM writing function is broken, but I  
>>> wonder
>>> why you
>>> are needing it now. Why was it necessary to rewrite the SPROM in  
>>> the first
>>> place? Once that was done, then it should never need to be done  
>>> again.
>>> Please
>>> explain what you did and what you are doing now.
>>
>> Since not all cards are created equal I take a card with specific
>> features and functionality, change the ID's to my own for use with my
>> own custom drivers which provides added functionality for cards  
>> with my
>> ID's.
>>
>> If the cards do not have my ID's they have the basic functionality  
>> that
>> people are used to seeing, with my ID's they have the ability to run
>> in simultaneous dual band mode (2.4ghz and 5ghz adhoc) and I use  
>> these
>> ID's to ensure that the drivers only work on cards I approve.
>>
>> My only need for linux is to rebrand the cards with my ID's.
>>
>> If I understood enough about the write mechanism I would forego  
>> the b43
>> code all together and create an app that reads and writes the  
>> flashrom
>> but the time involved  in sifting through the ubuntu code due to it's
>> source structure makes it a daunting task that turns me off.
>>
>>
>> As before when working in the original installation (provided to  
>> me as a
>> working installation) I would do the following: (both cat and cp  
>> fail)
>>
>>
>> sudo su; # become root to avoid permission issues
>>
>> cd /PATH TO DIR OF ssb_sprom; # I verify ssb_sprom exists in this  
>> location
>>
>> rmmod b43; # unload the driver
>>
>> cat updated_sprom >ssb_sprom; # write the updated file
>>
>>
>> This results in write failure under the new installation.
>>
>>
>> cp updated_sprom >ssb_sprom
>>
>>
>> This also results in a write failure under the new installation.
>
> I'm a little confused as the PCI IDs are not in the SPROM. Using  
> the procedure
> you describe, you would be unable to change them.
>
> You say you use Ubuntu 10. Is it 10.04 or 10.10? The earlier one  
> uses kernel
> 2.6.32, which I have not tested; however, I did try kernels 2.6.34  
> and 2.6.38.
> Both could write the SPROM for a Cardbus device without any problem.
>
> Larry

Yes you must be confused since your making those claims.

Perhaps you might wish to look at "ssb-sprom --help".

All the information I can find about modifying the sprom data talk  
about using ssb-sprom to make the changes.

The only thing that I have never been able to make work without  
corrupting the data is the status LED's, if I try to change them the  
card stop working and this test was performed on BCM94321 based cards  
and the test involved only changes to the status LED's so I have  
accepted that some changes are just not possible.

Installed version is 10.04, a CD which was mailed to me by requesting  
it directly from ubuntu.

What is frustrating me is that you are questioning my reasoning for  
requiring this functionality and making claims which you are  
apparently unknowledgeable about rather than focusing on the issue  
which is the failure to write.

I'll download an image for 10.10 and try that, if it works I'll let  
you know.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFNSpZliD9DTPch4RQRAsI1AJ9SybdL8C9MYsNGXe3ROzbnHsgq4QCfXY3x
ioSasOuRF2xx1LalBQdrv70=
=+QjR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

unable to write flashrom, functionality broken?

[Michael Büsch]

On Thu, 2011-02-03 at 06:49 -0500, Dale Walsh wrote: 
> >>>> always reports "write error: Operation Not Supported" and this  

I don't see a codepath that could trigger -EOPNOTSUPP in the
latest version of SSB.

-- 
Greetings Michael.

unable to write flashrom, functionality broken?

[Dale Walsh]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Feb 03, 2011, at 06:59 AM, Michael B?sch wrote:

> On Thu, 2011-02-03 at 06:49 -0500, Dale Walsh wrote:
>>>>>> always reports "write error: Operation Not Supported" and this
>
> I don't see a codepath that could trigger -EOPNOTSUPP in the
> latest version of SSB.
>
> --  
> Greetings Michael.

Well something is causing the failure and if the ubuntu/linux code- 
base wasn't such a mess I'd go through and fix it myself.

I installed ubuntu 10.10 and it works so there is something in the  
10.04 CD ubuntu sent me that causes the failure so for future  
reference, you can tell them to upgrade to 10.10 and the failure goes  
away.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFNSp8biD9DTPch4RQRAqhUAKCZPvBIwyYU/HvQOd5zOjzafo8w/QCgopI7
jS7yluMV35X4/GPzcLQvWnY=
=Mdkb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

unable to write flashrom, functionality broken?

[Michael Büsch]

On Thu, 2011-02-03 at 07:27 -0500, Dale Walsh wrote: 
> Well something is causing the failure and if the ubuntu/linux code- 
> base wasn't such a mess I'd go through and fix it myself.

I'm wondering to what mess you are referring.
I don't think the SPROM writing code is that bad.

> I installed ubuntu 10.10 and it works so there is something in the  
> 10.04 CD ubuntu sent me that causes the failure so for future  
> reference, you can tell them to upgrade to 10.10 and the failure goes  
> away.

I suggest you report this to the Ubuntu bugzilla.

-- 
Greetings Michael.

unable to write flashrom, functionality broken?

[Peter Stuge]

Michael B?sch wrote:
> > Well something is causing the failure and if the ubuntu/linux code- 
> > base wasn't such a mess I'd go through and fix it myself.
> 
> I'm wondering to what mess you are referring.

For someone whose only exposure to Linux is picking up a Ubuntu CD
a Linux system as a whole is a horrible mess. Part of it is the fact
that so many different components (packages if you like) are
involved, and there's no way to document all of that so well in a
single page executive summary, rather it's more like a week
curriculum.


> I don't think the SPROM writing code is that bad.

I believe that the b43 code is really good. Finding it and figuring
out what other code is relevant is the hard part.

It's very easy to explain the neccessary parts to someone skilled,
it's also easy to discover independently for the skilled person, but
doing that discovery alone will take a long time.


//Peter

unable to write flashrom, functionality broken?

[Michael Büsch]

On Thu, 2011-02-03 at 23:34 +0100, Peter Stuge wrote: 
> Michael B?sch wrote:
> > > Well something is causing the failure and if the ubuntu/linux code- 
> > > base wasn't such a mess I'd go through and fix it myself.
> > 
> > I'm wondering to what mess you are referring.
> 
> For someone whose only exposure to Linux is picking up a Ubuntu CD
> a Linux system as a whole is a horrible mess. Part of it is the fact
> that so many different components (packages if you like) are
> involved, and there's no way to document all of that so well in a
> single page executive summary, rather it's more like a week
> curriculum.

I'm not convinced that this is due to the Linux architecture
or a lack of its documentation.
You're simply unaware of the basic Unix tools that help you find
what you are searching for. Luckily the tool to find something
is called "find".

mb at maggie:~/develop/git/wireless-testing$ find . -name '*sprom*'
./include/config/ssb/sprom.h
./drivers/ssb/sprom.o
./drivers/ssb/sprom.c
./drivers/ssb/.sprom.o.cmd
./arch/mips/include/asm/mipsprom.h

You'll note that this pretty generic "find" run on the _whole_ Linux
kernel yields exactly one .c source file. And guess what, it's the one
you're looking for ;)

> It's very easy to explain the neccessary parts to someone skilled,
> it's also easy to discover independently for the skilled person, but
> doing that discovery alone will take a long time.

Searching the kernel source tree for the term "sprom" isn't rocket
science and doesn't consume much of your valuable time. q.e.d.

If you still think that there's a lack of documentation, please
contribute to the Linux wireless documentation wiki. I'd be happy to
see you share your knowledge with newbies.

-- 
Greetings Michael.

unable to write flashrom, functionality broken?

[Dale Walsh]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Feb 03, 2011, at 17:06 PM, Michael B?sch wrote:

> On Thu, 2011-02-03 at 07:27 -0500, Dale Walsh wrote:
>> Well something is causing the failure and if the ubuntu/linux code-
>> base wasn't such a mess I'd go through and fix it myself.
>
> I'm wondering to what mess you are referring.
> I don't think the SPROM writing code is that bad.

The SPROM writing code itself might not be so bad but the b43 code  
has stuff all over the place and scavenging through all the files  
trying to find the relevant material would require more time that I  
have to get a working solution, not exactly what I'd call cohesive  
when you start looking at code and you have to look all over the  
place to find stuff, my dislike is in the structure or I should state  
lack of.

This is not to say that the package as a whole is not good but having  
to rebuild a kernel to add driver support is in my opinion a poor  
design concept, drivers should be standalone and not require  
additional code inserted in the kernel to obtain functionality.

If I could extract the code and generate a standalone app to perform  
the flash it would make it much easier to resolve write issues.

>> I installed ubuntu 10.10 and it works so there is something in the
>> 10.04 CD ubuntu sent me that causes the failure so for future
>> reference, you can tell them to upgrade to 10.10 and the failure goes
>> away.
>
> I suggest you report this to the Ubuntu bugzilla.

Report what?

It's mentioned that the code is messed up and 10.10 works so what's  
the point in mentioning it again.

> -- 
> Greetings Michael.
>
>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFNSzv3iD9DTPch4RQRAphvAJwI0fqzUziWjdNGOMs56qF3Ns0ZiACZAds8
tcwE4srP+t7ojMhQUgGaOUc=
=U5xc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

unable to write flashrom, functionality broken?

[Peter Stuge]

Michael B?sch wrote:
> > > > Well something is causing the failure and if the ubuntu/linux code- 
> > > > base wasn't such a mess I'd go through and fix it myself.
> > > 
> > > I'm wondering to what mess you are referring.
> > 
> > For someone whose only exposure to Linux is picking up a Ubuntu CD
> > a Linux system as a whole is a horrible mess. Part of it is the fact
> > that so many different components (packages if you like) are
> > involved, and there's no way to document all of that so well in a
> > single page executive summary, rather it's more like a week
> > curriculum.
> 
> I'm not convinced that this is due to the Linux architecture
> or a lack of its documentation.

Now you're moving on to why, which I think doesn't matter.

You asked what mess, I pointed out what I believed was the original
poster's point.

I don't really care why. Personally I also don't really think Linux
is a mess, I find it very structured, but like any modern operating
system the structure can seem really complex when starting out,
simply because there are so many components.


> You're simply unaware of the basic Unix tools that help you find
> what you are searching for.

Not at all. If I was the one looking for the code that talks to
hardware I'd not only know where to find it, but I'd also know every
other component of hardware and software that the data passes through
on the way.


> Luckily the tool to find something is called "find".

I think you may have missed my point. One part is certainly to know
how to find a file in a Linux system, but more important is the
question of what to search for (a file) and where to search (in the
kernel codebase). It's not at all obvious to a newcomer where the
kernel edge is, or even that the kernel is so distinct.


> "find" run on the _whole_ Linux kernel yields exactly one .c source file

Getting to the point where one has a feel for the kernel's scope
already requires a bit of studying of the system.

I've had enough experience training my customers and on a couple
occasions also students to have seen many difficulties in grasping
exactly what the kernel is.


> > It's very easy to explain the neccessary parts to someone skilled,
> > it's also easy to discover independently for the skilled person, but
> > doing that discovery alone will take a long time.
> 
> Searching the kernel source tree for the term "sprom" isn't rocket
> science and doesn't consume much of your valuable time.

Hopefully the above explanation helps clarify that the problem is not
about finding "sprom" in the kernel source. At that point the problem
is, as you point out, quite easily solved. What can take a bit of
time is getting to the point of knowing where to search.


> If you still think that there's a lack of documentation, please
> contribute to the Linux wireless documentation wiki.

I think that would be a total micro-optimization for the case that I
have tried to describe. :\


> I'd be happy to see you share your knowledge with newbies.

It'll make you happy then that I'm happy to share what knowledge I
have. However, it's also important to choose one's battles, and I for
one prefer the lecture format in this case, if only because I can
speak faster than I can type. ;)


//Peter

unable to write flashrom, functionality broken?

[Peter Stuge]

Dale Walsh wrote:
>> I suggest you report this to the Ubuntu bugzilla.
>
> Report what?
>
> It's mentioned that the code is messed up and 10.10 works so what's
> the point in mentioning it again.

I'm not sure of how Ubuntu updates work, but maybe 10.04 could get an
update which fixes the problem. Even if that's not relevant for your
10.10 use case it would be a nice thing to do in order to help others
who may potentially run into the same issue, using 10.04.


//Peter

unable to write flashrom, functionality broken?

[Michael Büsch]

On Thu, 2011-02-03 at 18:36 -0500, Dale Walsh wrote: 
> The SPROM writing code itself might not be so bad but the b43 code  
> has stuff all over the place and scavenging through all the files  
> trying to find the relevant material would require more time that I  
> have to get a working solution, not exactly what I'd call cohesive  
> when you start looking at code and you have to look all over the  
> place to find stuff, my dislike is in the structure or I should state  
> lack of.

Claiming a distaste for the spread of code into subsystems and the
lack of structure at the same time is an interesting thing to do...

As I mentioned before: You do not have to dig through all those
files. There are fast and easy to use standard Unix tools that do
this job for you.

> This is not to say that the package as a whole is not good but having  
> to rebuild a kernel to add driver support is in my opinion a poor  
> design concept, drivers should be standalone and not require  
> additional code inserted in the kernel to obtain functionality.

Yeah, and that is why there is absolutely no need to recompile
the kernel, if you want to add a driver. _Especially_ not for wireless.
The Linux wireless developers maintain the compat-wireless package,
which is a major effort for the only purpose of end-user convenience.

> If I could extract the code and generate a standalone app to perform  
> the flash it would make it much easier to resolve write issues.

ssb-sprom basically _is_ the standalone app to perform sprom
modification. For the actual "flashing" (it's not flash)
you'll need kernel support, naturally. There's no sane way around
that requirement. The kernel part is tiny, and you will always need it.

> >> I installed ubuntu 10.10 and it works so there is something in the
> >> 10.04 CD ubuntu sent me that causes the failure so for future
> >> reference, you can tell them to upgrade to 10.10 and the failure goes
> >> away.
> >
> > I suggest you report this to the Ubuntu bugzilla.
> 
> Report what?

Report that SSB SPROM writing is broken in Ubuntu 10.04, so
that Ubuntu developers can fix it. There's no way I can fix that,
because I am an upstream maintainer. And my upstream code is OK
as of latest revision.

> It's mentioned that the code is messed up

For a proper technical conversation it's always a good idea
to avoid unqualified and unproven claims.
That basically leads nowhere, except for aggressive replies.

-- 
Greetings Michael.

unable to write flashrom, functionality broken?

[Michael Büsch]

On Fri, 2011-02-04 at 00:47 +0100, Peter Stuge wrote: 
> > You're simply unaware of the basic Unix tools that help you find
> > what you are searching for.
> 
> Not at all. If I was the one looking for the code that talks to
> hardware I'd not only know where to find it, but I'd also know every
> other component of hardware and software that the data passes through
> on the way.

A basic thing about software abstraction is that you do _not_ need
to know what a subsystem does internally. To understand the ssb_sprom
file, you do _not_ have to read one single line of sysfs code.
To understand the whole SSB SPROM writing, you have to read about 200
lines of code.

> > Luckily the tool to find something is called "find".
> 
> I think you may have missed my point. One part is certainly to know
> how to find a file in a Linux system, but more important is the
> question of what to search for (a file) and where to search (in the
> kernel codebase). It's not at all obvious to a newcomer where the
> kernel edge is, or even that the kernel is so distinct.

I think we're probably drifting offtopic. Why would a newcomer who
doesn't even know what an operating system kernel is want to
write an SSB SPROM? That guy will brick his device anyway, as
he _will_ write incorrect data to the SPROM.

The next thing you'll probably blame on me is that I did not document in
the b43 documentation how to use a qwerty keyboard.

-- 
Greetings Michael.

unable to write flashrom, functionality broken?

[Peter Stuge]

Michael B?sch wrote:
> To understand the ssb_sprom file, you do _not_ have to read one
> single line of sysfs code.

Of course. But it can be important to know what sysfs is and what
patterns it uses in order to see a bigger picture.


> To understand the whole SSB SPROM writing, you have to read about
> 200 lines of code.

Yep.


> > It's not at all obvious to a newcomer where the kernel edge is,
> > or even that the kernel is so distinct.
> 
> Why would a newcomer who doesn't even know what an operating system
> kernel is

That's not what I wrote though. I agree with you that it's important
to try to be as accurate as possible.

By "the kernel" I mean Linux. Someone working expertly with a
completely different system may think in the (simplistic) term
Ubuntu. It's a long way from that high-level view into the file with
code that writes the SPROM.


> want to write an SSB SPROM?

As was explained, in this case a Ubuntu system was used as a tool in
a production process.


> That guy will brick his device anyway, as he _will_ write incorrect
> data to the SPROM.

I think it's possible to find a person who knows nearly every bit in
the SPROM, but who knows nothing about Linux. I don't think there's
correlation between the two.


> The next thing you'll probably blame on me is that I did not
> document in the b43 documentation how to use a qwerty keyboard.

I have not and do not blame anything on you.

I think you're being much too sensitive about what I wrote. It was
clear (to me) that you snapped into defensive mode, and that's
unfortunate since I do not believe anyone was attacking you.
(I.e. saying something like Martin is stupid, Martin writes bad code,
or it's Martin's fault that this code does not work on this Ubuntu
version. I certainly don't suggest any of that.)

I don't think that it's your fault that Linux systems are sometimes
complex beasts.. :)


//Peter

unable to write flashrom, functionality broken?

[Dale Walsh]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Feb 03, 2011, at 19:29 PM, Michael B?sch wrote:

> On Fri, 2011-02-04 at 00:47 +0100, Peter Stuge wrote:
>>> You're simply unaware of the basic Unix tools that help you find
>>> what you are searching for.
>>
>> Not at all. If I was the one looking for the code that talks to
>> hardware I'd not only know where to find it, but I'd also know every
>> other component of hardware and software that the data passes through
>> on the way.
>
> A basic thing about software abstraction is that you do _not_ need
> to know what a subsystem does internally. To understand the ssb_sprom
> file, you do _not_ have to read one single line of sysfs code.
> To understand the whole SSB SPROM writing, you have to read about 200
> lines of code.

I see so if I can compile the ssb-sprom program I am able to perform  
"flashing" of SPROM's on various Broadcom based wireless cards  
without doing anything else, not likely since the kernel may not have  
the required support or functionality.

A kernel compiled without the included dependancies and features  
doesn't support it and the linux based OS I am familiar with doesn't  
require rebuilding the kernel to add support or functionality to do  
anything but is not compatible with the the general linux  
distributions drivers.

My opinion is that there shouldn't be any dependent code in the  
kernel to perform these flashing tasks.

Finding all the code that relates to the Broadcom wireless device and  
it's functionality should be inclusive in the b43 code, having to  
look outside this code to find code that performs the flashing makes  
no sense and the use of nested abstraction layers and code buried in  
structs for functionality only makes it difficult for a person not  
familiar with the code base to locate anything and my opinion is  
there should be no need to look outside the b43 code.

You say you don't have to recompile the kernel to add support for  
things, I remember initially working with ubuntu 8.01 and having to  
recompile the kernel to add support for the Broadcom wireless cards  
because downloading and installing a wireless kernel package someone  
else made that only allowed flashing of some cards was useless.

Rewriting the nVidia drivers was something else I did since 8.0.1  
didn't seem to support multiple cards and having to install a blob  
provided by nvidia to make the card work and seeing this popup  
explaining the license of the third-party (nVidia) software was a  
waste of time so this was dumped in favor of my own code which  
included a HAL source file for the 6k and 7k series cards, not  
exactly legally obtained.

After my 8.01 experience I decided that if the OS doesn't come with  
the required support it's of no value to me, when the working 10 was  
provided on disk I didn't have to do anything or at the very least  
only minimal before flashing and since no instructions were provided  
telling me that I had to do anything other but reinstall the software  
I expected it to work as intended.

Since it seems that wireless support is now pretty much included it's  
improving but when stuff doesn't work, someone involved should be  
knowledgeable enough to know why and or to suggest commands that  
might help isolate the cause of the failure, it might have been user  
induced but it appears that after the installation of 10.10 we can  
conclude it's not a user related error since it works properly.


>
>>> Luckily the tool to find something is called "find".

You can tell "find" to find only the code specifically related to  
flashing SPROM's???

>>
>> I think you may have missed my point. One part is certainly to know
>> how to find a file in a Linux system, but more important is the
>> question of what to search for (a file) and where to search (in the
>> kernel codebase). It's not at all obvious to a newcomer where the
>> kernel edge is, or even that the kernel is so distinct.
>
> I think we're probably drifting offtopic. Why would a newcomer who
> doesn't even know what an operating system kernel is want to
> write an SSB SPROM? That guy will brick his device anyway, as
> he _will_ write incorrect data to the SPROM.

Making assumptions about some ones knowledge or experience is not a  
good thing and I have revealed nothing that would make any  
intelligent person conclude this with them first asking pertinent  
questions.

Stating I will brick cards because you lack the capacity to  
distinguish intelligence from frustration doesn't look good on you  
and you should have asked questions before making such a grand  
assumption, I have flashed more than 10,000 cards and have not  
bricked one, I have had cards that I have tried to alter LED behavior  
stop functioning because they have unsupported firmware versions that  
the application doesn't properly support but I understand that there  
is a risk involved in making changes so I limit my changes to avoid  
that conundrum.

When you can decode a DXE from an intel motherboard BIOS, contact me,  
we might have something we can discuss.

> The next thing you'll probably blame on me is that I did not  
> document in
> the b43 documentation how to use a qwerty keyboard.
> -- 
> Greetings Michael.
>
>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFNS28siD9DTPch4RQRArguAJwKOPyljoMsinW0P2SXR0X1UzN3VACfS75E
fPwdXvX5/8BCM6IYyoIl/UI=
=T6qS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

unable to write flashrom, functionality broken?

[richardvoigt at gmail.com]

> You say you don't have to recompile the kernel to add support for things, I
> remember initially working with ubuntu 8.01 and having to recompile the
> kernel to add support for the Broadcom wireless cards because downloading
> and installing a wireless kernel package someone else made that only allowed
> flashing of some cards was useless.

This is not something you need to recompile the kernel to do.  You do
need the kernel source code (check your package manager) and the
config used by the running kernel (available in a pseudo-file) and
that's enough to do an out-of-tree build of your driver.

The idea that a user-mode application should be able to update
firmware without kernel help is patently ridiculous no matter what
(modern general-purpose) operating system you are expert in, since it
requires I/O privileges that are not held by user-mode applications.
But such an application can be distributed with the source code and
build system for an out-of-tree build of the relevant kernel code, in
which case administrator rights will be needed to insert the kernel
module, but the installation process needn't involve replacing any
boot files as would be done after a kernel recompile.

unable to write flashrom, functionality broken?

[Michael Büsch]

On Thu, 2011-02-03 at 22:14 -0500, Dale Walsh wrote: 
> I see so if I can compile the ssb-sprom program I am able to perform  
> "flashing" of SPROM's on various Broadcom based wireless cards  
> without doing anything else, not likely since the kernel may not have  
> the required support or functionality.
> 
> A kernel compiled without the included dependancies and features  
> doesn't support it and the linux based OS I am familiar with doesn't  
> require rebuilding the kernel to add support or functionality to do  
> anything but is not compatible with the the general linux  
> distributions drivers.
> 
> My opinion is that there shouldn't be any dependent code in the  
> kernel to perform these flashing tasks.
> 
> Finding all the code that relates to the Broadcom wireless device and  
> it's functionality should be inclusive in the b43 code, having to  
> look outside this code to find code that performs the flashing makes  
> no sense and the use of nested abstraction layers and code buried in  
> structs for functionality only makes it difficult for a person not  
> familiar with the code base to locate anything and my opinion is  
> there should be no need to look outside the b43 code.

Wow, it's really funny to read your mail.
That stuff is so clueless and ridiculous... You must be the
master troll.

I do actually remember why I put you into my mailfilters back in 2008.
I did one mistake, however. I later reinstalled the machine and did
not put the filters back.

To say once again what I already said in 2008:
We are not your personal support army for your questionable business.

-- 
Greetings Michael.

unable to write flashrom, functionality broken?

[Dale Walsh]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Feb 04, 2011, at 00:49 AM, richardvoigt at gmail.com wrote:

>> You say you don't have to recompile the kernel to add support for  
>> things, I
>> remember initially working with ubuntu 8.01 and having to  
>> recompile the
>> kernel to add support for the Broadcom wireless cards because  
>> downloading
>> and installing a wireless kernel package someone else made that  
>> only allowed
>> flashing of some cards was useless.
>
> This is not something you need to recompile the kernel to do.  You do
> need the kernel source code (check your package manager) and the
> config used by the running kernel (available in a pseudo-file) and
> that's enough to do an out-of-tree build of your driver.
>
> The idea that a user-mode application should be able to update
> firmware without kernel help is patently ridiculous no matter what
> (modern general-purpose) operating system you are expert in, since it
> requires I/O privileges that are not held by user-mode applications.
> But such an application can be distributed with the source code and
> build system for an out-of-tree build of the relevant kernel code, in
> which case administrator rights will be needed to insert the kernel
> module, but the installation process needn't involve replacing any
> boot files as would be done after a kernel recompile.
>

I made no claim that kernel help was not required to perform a task,  
I only know what I have experienced in the past regarding flashing  
Broadcom devices.

If that really is the case, then why when building and installing it  
does it create such a large package and install a kernel and support  
files and modify the grub menu rather than install just the required  
driver and application and allow it to function regardless of the  
selected kernel?

When I was working in 8.01 the application and b43 driver alone was  
insufficient to allow flashing, this may be different in newer  
versions but at that time I was unable to make it work without  
installing all kinds of stuff (the full pkg) and selecting the  
modified kernel in the boot loader menu in order to flash the cards  
otherwise it refused to write to any of the BCM94321 I had claiming  
it was an unsupported PHY and would not allow operation on it.

As I recall further, I had to make patches to disable certain checks  
so it would allow writing to any Broadcom cards rather than certain  
cards and some simple apps to change the ID's in the file and  
recalculate the checksum were simple since this is the only required  
changes, I don't need to know what the other bytes represent since  
these are not being altered.

I've worked in FreeBSD, Darwin (not Mac OS X) and Mac OS X and I have  
never had any issues accessing kernel or user space or even modifying  
protected resources or memory on the fly.

There are API's and frameworks to handle those accesses and it's a  
matter of utilizing the correct framework.

I've converted all kinds of drivers from the ubuntu tree to run under  
Mac OS X and for the most part the majority of the code is discarded  
due to the specific kernel ties.

I wrote an application to take existing nVidia SPROM firmware image  
form the card, generate an EFI compatible firmware image, merge the  
two images, correct checksums and firmware size and then reflash the  
card (as long as the SPROM is large enough to contain the new image)  
occurs in about 800 lines of C code and no driver is required to be  
loaded, it finds the device on the PCI bus by ID and there is nothing  
in the ubuntu tree that contains this functionality otherwise I would  
have borrowed it.


If you wish to knit-pick over details knock yourself out but you need  
to stop making assumptions about what I know and don't know.

Explaining in great detail serves no real purpose other than bragging  
and I really have nothing to contribute to the b43 driver or ubuntu  
so explicit details on the b43 code is of no concern to me, it either  
works or it doesn't, if it doesn't then I look for a solution, if it  
does then I have a flashing solution and don't need to look further.

It also seems that people involved with these projects are too  
sensitive, if you don't say something just right or don't mention  
something they get bent out of shape and go off attacking people  
labeling them as morons and idiots, very professional for someone  
involved in a public project who goal is to support the code they  
provide.

I'm not familiar with the code base because after looking at all the  
files I've personally decided it's a structured mess and I will go to  
the group responsible for a particular piece of code when I have  
issues rather than waste months of time learning the code base so I  
can fix it myself, far too time consuming for something that serves a  
single purpose and needs to work immediately.

If there was no solution then I would have to spend the time creating  
something but re-inventing the wheel is an exercise in poor time  
management when time is not something you have.

10.04 is broken, 10.10 works, and this satisfies me, going back and  
playing with 10.04 to find out why or playing with an upgrade path is  
not something I have time for and the condescending attitudes makes  
it less attractive.

If someone else comes experiencing this issue you can inform them  
that 10.10 works as verified by others as well and that should pretty  
much be the end of it unless they have the time and want to spend the  
time digging further but I would suggest curbing the attitude and  
taking a more relaxed approach if you really want to receive  
assistance in debugging things.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFNS+u4iD9DTPch4RQRAiktAKCXXcspz5QJrMxln4rociQScPyMVACfWDT6
TZBLZD8AA0yTpU799s4/DkE=
=cbz0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

unable to write flashrom, functionality broken?

[Dale Walsh]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Feb 04, 2011, at 06:20 AM, Michael B?sch wrote:

> On Thu, 2011-02-03 at 22:14 -0500, Dale Walsh wrote:
>> I see so if I can compile the ssb-sprom program I am able to perform
>> "flashing" of SPROM's on various Broadcom based wireless cards
>> without doing anything else, not likely since the kernel may not have
>> the required support or functionality.
>>
>> A kernel compiled without the included dependancies and features
>> doesn't support it and the linux based OS I am familiar with doesn't
>> require rebuilding the kernel to add support or functionality to do
>> anything but is not compatible with the the general linux
>> distributions drivers.
>>
>> My opinion is that there shouldn't be any dependent code in the
>> kernel to perform these flashing tasks.
>>
>> Finding all the code that relates to the Broadcom wireless device and
>> it's functionality should be inclusive in the b43 code, having to
>> look outside this code to find code that performs the flashing makes
>> no sense and the use of nested abstraction layers and code buried in
>> structs for functionality only makes it difficult for a person not
>> familiar with the code base to locate anything and my opinion is
>> there should be no need to look outside the b43 code.
>
> Wow, it's really funny to read your mail.
> That stuff is so clueless and ridiculous... You must be the
> master troll.
>
> I do actually remember why I put you into my mailfilters back in 2008.
> I did one mistake, however. I later reinstalled the machine and did
> not put the filters back.
>
> To say once again what I already said in 2008:
> We are not your personal support army for your questionable business.
>
> --  
> Greetings Michael.

Support the code you provide publicly is your purpose, me fixing it  
for you is not support.

What questionable business?

It's against the law to modify a cards ID's?

You like the ubuntu code base and that is your choice, mine is  
different, I believe it suffers from poor management and it is not  
your place to dictate what my opinion should be.

Since you acknowledge you are responsible for this b43 code then make  
sure it works and I wont have to come asking why it doesn't and why  
you broke it, or are you now acknowledging that it's not sound code  
and is questionable if it works type of software?

You know what, no need to respond, you have nothing intelligent to  
add as evident of your responses so do yourself a favor and don't  
bother and it will die off.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFNS+5WiD9DTPch4RQRAgaSAJ4pU3bhBFOY/ehD4xSDO3pYr7zwagCghYsI
kTzJpdRSJH5CtJ1mIcUeM/E=
=g6E+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

unable to write flashrom, functionality broken?

[Michael Büsch]

On Fri, 2011-02-04 at 07:06 -0500, Dale Walsh wrote: 
> If you wish to knit-pick over details knock yourself out but you need  
> to stop making assumptions about what I know and don't know.

No. You really just need to stop guessing around.

> Explaining in great detail serves no real purpose

I already figured out that you're not interested in falsifications of
your flawed logics.

> It also seems that people involved with these projects are too  
> sensitive, if you don't say something just right or don't mention  
> something they get bent out of shape and go off attacking people  
> labeling them as morons and idiots, very professional for someone  
> involved in a public project who goal is to support the code they  
> provide.

Please quote me with context saying that you're a moron or an idiot.

YOU are the one getting personal. YOU are the one who claimed in
the first place that our software was crap.

> I'm not familiar with the code base because after looking at all the  
> files I've personally decided it's a structured mess

See?

-- 
Greetings Michael.

unable to write flashrom, functionality broken?

[Michael Büsch]

> Support the code you provide publicly is your purpose, me fixing it?  
> for you is not support.

So far there was no fix needed, because it's not broken.

> What questionable business?
>
> It's against the law to modify a cards ID's?

Don't get me started with "law". You're distributing quite a few interresting files on your public http server's download area.

> You like the ubuntu code base and that is your choice,

i did not say that.
?  
> different, I believe it suffers from poor management and it is not?  
> your place to dictate what my opinion should be.
>
> Since you acknowledge you are responsible for this b43 code then make

no i don't. i currently am the ssb maintainer.

> You know what, no need to respond, you have nothing intelligent to?  
> add as evident of your responses

as I said. You are the one who drives this discussion into the nontechnical corner.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/b43-dev/attachments/20110204/770bb988/attachment.html>

unable to write flashrom, functionality broken?

[Dale Walsh]

Be smart, let it go.


On Feb 04, 2011, at 07:21 AM, Michael B?sch wrote:

> On Fri, 2011-02-04 at 07:06 -0500, Dale Walsh wrote:
>> If you wish to knit-pick over details knock yourself out but you need
>> to stop making assumptions about what I know and don't know.
>
> No. You really just need to stop guessing around.

What guessing?

>
>> Explaining in great detail serves no real purpose
>
> I already figured out that you're not interested in falsifications of
> your flawed logics.

More dribble which has nothing to do with your code not working in  
ubuntu 10.04.

>> It also seems that people involved with these projects are too
>> sensitive, if you don't say something just right or don't mention
>> something they get bent out of shape and go off attacking people
>> labeling them as morons and idiots, very professional for someone
>> involved in a public project who goal is to support the code they
>> provide.
>
> Please quote me with context saying that you're a moron or an idiot.


Are you really that slow that you don't know and can't recall what  
you wrote or see the implications when you state what you believe to  
be factual without foundation?

If I put my car key in the ignition of my car, turn it and nothing  
happens I call the dealer because it's obviously broken.

You most likely would interpret that statement to be only what is  
stated and have some smart-assed comment that implies I'm not smart  
enough to determine if there is an electrical issue such as a dead  
battery preventing the car from starting or I didn't turn the key far  
enough and I conclude this based on the way in which you respond not  
only to me but others.

--- START OF QUOTE ---
On Feb 03, 2011, at 19:29 PM, Michael B?sch wrote:

> That guy will brick his device anyway, as
> he _will_ write incorrect data to the SPROM.

--- END OF QUOTE ---



> YOU are the one getting personal. YOU are the one who claimed in
> the first place that our software was crap.
>
>> I'm not familiar with the code base because after looking at all the
>> files I've personally decided it's a structured mess
>
> See?

I specifically state it is my personal decision regarding the state  
of the source tree, are you now accepting responsibility for the  
entire ubuntu source tree?

The remark does not attack your code and I am not the only person who  
has a poor opinion regarding the state of the ubuntu source tree.

If you want to be responsible for a public project that offers public  
support that's great but expect that issue will come up and people  
will expect support and this has nothing to do with the purpose for  
which they use the software, my opinion is this,  it's a public  
project which offers support and you seem to be the leader so, if  
it's broke, fix it, if it isn't broke attempt to help the user in a  
kind and courteous manner and if you can't be kind and courteous  
don't involve yourself in assisting them, they are already frustrated  
enough by the fact that the software doesn't work the way they expect  
it to that they don't need to be further aggravated by a person  
offering support.

> -- 
> Greetings Michael.

My comments about you are generalized and in defense of not only  
remarks and statements you have made towards me but also others.

You really don't appear to have enough common sense to let things go  
and believe you have made no attacks on anyone at any time which is  
sad at best but you are who you are.

When I receive off-list comments from users who are afraid to ask  
questions because of the way in which you and others appear to  
respond to people in general who are less knowledgeable than you  
about your code or the code base in general, this only further  
substantiates my opinion that you should seek professional help and  
refrain from responding to any pleas for assistance because you don't  
and wont play nice with others.

Others have chimed in and made comments regarding your condescending  
attitude and behavior but you seem to relish in the arguments, my  
personal opinion of you as a sane and respectful party who has the  
best interest of the b43 project they claim to represent has sunk so  
low that it's not publicly possible to state it without violating  
some law.

If people didn't think you were so important to the project and had a  
replacement they would have dumped you years ago, they accept your  
antics because it's the trade-off they are willing to accept and many  
people from this list have made this comment to me, the difference  
is, I don't mind saying it publicly.

Because they are willing to accept it doesn't mean every person who  
comes into contact with you must and I certainly don't.

Do yourself a favor and let it go, it's not beneficial to the project  
to act in this manner and it is my observation that you really seem  
to have no common sense regarding your treatment towards others when  
you can make unfounded remarks about an individual as if it were  
factual.

I understand how people with power will abuse that power when ever  
someone questions their actions and attitudes
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/b43-dev/attachments/20110204/4064abe1/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/b43-dev/attachments/20110204/4064abe1/attachment-0001.sig>

unable to write flashrom, functionality broken?

[Ehud Gavron]

On 02/04/2011 02:38 PM, Dale Walsh wrote:
> Be smart, let it go.
Great advice, Dale.  One day when Michael is a leech and a noncontributor I'm sure he'll listen to you.

Go take your own advice.

Now.

E
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/b43-dev/attachments/20110204/5e632048/attachment.html>

unable to write flashrom, functionality broken?

[Michael Büsch]

On Fri, 2011-02-04 at 16:38 -0500, Dale Walsh wrote: 
> Be smart, let it go.


> Are you really that slow 

I'll leave it as an exercise to you to find all the
personal insults in this quote.

> If I put my car key in the ignition of my car, turn it and nothing
> happens I call the dealer because it's obviously broken.
> You most likely would interpret that statement to be only what is
> stated and have some smart-assed comment that implies I'm not smart
> enough to determine if there is an electrical issue such as a dead
> battery preventing the car from starting or I didn't turn the key far
> enough and I conclude this based on the way in which you respond not
> only to me but others.

You probably forgot to put gas into the car.

> --- START OF QUOTE ---
> On Feb 03, 2011, at 19:29 PM, Michael B?sch wrote:
> > That guy will brick his device anyway, as 
> > he _will_ write incorrect data to the SPROM. 
> --- END OF QUOTE ---

I fail to find the words "idiot" and "moron" in this quote.
q.e.d.

> I specifically state it is my personal decision regarding the state of
> the source tree, are you now accepting responsibility for the entire
> ubuntu source tree?

Why would I?
I am not an Ubuntu developer. Why would I have any responsibility for
a single line of code in their distribution?

Do you notice the flawed logics?

> If you want to be responsible for a public project that offers public
> support that's great but expect that issue will come up and people
> will expect support and this has nothing to do with the purpose for
> which they use the software, my opinion is this,  it's a public
> project which offers support and you seem to be the leader so, if it's
> broke, fix it, if it isn't broke attempt to help the user in a kind
> and courteous manner and if you can't be kind and courteous don't
> involve yourself in assisting them, they are already frustrated enough
> by the fact that the software doesn't work the way they expect it to
> that they don't need to be further aggravated by a person offering
> support.

So the situation is:
I put my free time into a project that probably helps people. And
you're essentially complaining that I don't put enough of my valuable
free time into the project? Who are you to judge where I'm supposed
to spend my free time? We are not your personal support army.
You got our code for free. For free as in beer and as in freedom.
Without any implied warranties. Deal with it.

You know what? If I knew you in real life and you bitched about
a birthday present I gave you, it would be the very last present you
got from me. 
> You really don't appear to have enough common sense to let things go
> and believe you have made no attacks on anyone at any time which is
> sad at best but you are who you are.

Uh, talking about common sense.
I'm deeply sorry that I personally attacked you with my C sourcecode.
Where am I supposed to send the gift hamper to?

> When I receive off-list comments from users who are afraid to ask
> questions because of the way in which you and others appear to respond
> to people in general who are less knowledgeable than you about your
> code or the code base in general,

You probably think that you're the only one getting supportive off-list
comments from people. Guess what? You're possibly wrong.

> this only further substantiates my opinion that you should seek
> professional help and refrain from responding to any pleas for
> assistance because you don't and wont play nice with others.

Oh, professional help. Here we go.

> Others have chimed in and made comments regarding your condescending
> attitude and behavior but you seem to relish in the arguments, my
> personal opinion of you as a sane and respectful party who has the
> best interest of the b43 project they claim to represent has sunk so
> low that it's not publicly possible to state it without violating some
> law.

Wow. I think that reveals more of your attitude than of mine.

> If people didn't think you were so important to the project and had a
> replacement they would have dumped you years ago, they accept your
> antics because it's the trade-off they are willing to accept and many
> people from this list have made this comment to me, the difference is,
> I don't mind saying it publicly.

If you had followed b43 development remotely, you would have noticed
that I'm certainly not an important person to the project. Larry,
Rafal and all those others working on LP and N support are way more
important to the project than me.
And that's fine.

> Do yourself a favor and let it go, it's not beneficial to the project
> to act in this manner and it is my observation that you really seem to
> have no common sense regarding your treatment towards others when you
> can make unfounded remarks about an individual as if it were factual.

You're pretty entertaining. And that's actually the only reason I reply
to your mails.


-- 
Greetings Michael.

unable to write flashrom, functionality broken?

[Rafał Miłecki]

2011/2/4 Dale Walsh <dale@daleenterprise.com>:
> Be smart, let it go.
>
> (...)
>
> If I put my car key in the ignition of my car, turn it and nothing happens I
> call the dealer because it's?obviously?broken.

Then call your dealer, not ignition producer. Find other ppl to troll
with, nobody here is interested.

Michael: you don great job for Linux, your replies are fine but we
have to agree there is no sense about that. Dale don't want to
understand/agree and he won't. I strongly suggest re-applying your
filter you got on old machine ;)

-- 
Rafa?