Re: [Familiar] 0.8.4 udev rules - was: Re: v0.8.4-rc3 - wifi problem which doesn't exist underkernel 2.6.15-hh0

We can always ask at the familiar mailing group.
If You don't think that is a bad idea and it won't be trashing the group.
Unless You see a simpler solution.
Let me know - I have the list ready:)

Michal

On 8/12/06, Joshua Layne <joshua-/AUtJLgdlQgnxqbYAscKCQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Michal Panczyk wrote:
> > I have a question :
> > What does this lines in /etc/pcmcia/hostap_cs.conf stand for
> >
> > "card "ASUS WL-100 8011b WLAN PC Card"
> >   version "ASUS", "802_11b_PC_CARD_25", "Version 01.00"
> >   manfid 0x02aa, 0x0002
> >   bind "hostap_cs"
> >
> >
> > # Optional configuration parameters for hostap_cs.o
> > # module "hostap_cs" opts "channel=3 iw_mode=3 essid=test
> > ignore_cis_vcc=0"
> > module "hostap_cs" opts "channel=3 iw_mode=2 essid=any ignore_cis_vcc=1"
> >
> > card "3Com AirConnect"
> >  version "3Com", "3CRWE737A AirConnect Wireless LAN PC Card"
> >  bind "hostap_cs"
> > "
> > Is is just an info or does it apply to all the cards that are below
> > that line ?
> >
> > My card is belelow that and needs the ignore_cis_vcc=1
> > The Ambicom WL1100C 11Mbs Card 802.11b that Dan had problem with
> > (http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.h2200/2287) is also below
> > that line.
> > NETGEAR MA701 Wireless CF Card from bugzilla
> > (http://handhelds.org/~bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1719) too...
> >
> > That's why I was talking about distinction in the pcmcia config file.
> >
> > Michal
> Hi Michal,
> I do not know whether the position of that line has any significance
> with regard to what it applies to or not - offhand, I doubt it, but it
> might.
>
> The other thing of note is, to the best of my knowledge, all cards above
> the line are pcmcia cards and all cards below the line are CF cards.
>
> Whether this is directly related to the vcc issue, I do not know.
>
> Sorry if I wasn't clear in my earlier comment,
> Josh
> >
> > On 8/12/06, Joshua Layne <joshua-/AUtJLgdlQgnxqbYAscKCQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
> wrote:
> >> Hi Rene,
> >> When I reviewed the /etc/pcmcia/hostap_cs.conf file - I saw no
> >> delineation between any of the cards there - They were all set to
> >> ignore_cis_vcc=1
> >>
> >> I understand your point about it potentially damaging a card, but this
> >> is an issue that effects most if not all hostap_cs users - it is one of
> >> the most common questions on the listservs, since the 0.8.4-rc2.3
> >> release and certainly previous images seem to have taken a 'peanut
> >> butter' approach to solving it - yes, the cards were expressly named,
> >> but otherwise, it effected all of them. (as a note, we could expressly
> >> name all the cards via udev rules, it would just be a bit of work to
> >> transfer that over and from a maintenance perspective it is not as
> >> clean)
> >>
> >> if modprobe.d is the proper place for it, that's fine - but the familiar
> >> images did not seem to have fully switched over to modprobe.d --
> >> /etc/modutils is no longer parsed, from all the testing I have done.
> >>
> >> I still don't understand why this worked in Matt Reimer's corrected
> >> images of 0.8.4-rc1 - there were certainly no udev rules present, I can
> >> only assume that it was a slightly different option set in the kernel
> >> that allowed /etc/pcmcia/hostap_cs.conf to be parsed, but I do not know
> >> what that would be.
> >>
> >> If at all possible, I think we should have a solution for this that
> >> allows end users (who may not know the first thing about writing udev
> >> rules) to be able to use their cards with familiar out-of-the-box.  If
> >> that is not possible, then we need to communicate clearly the option -
> >> wiki, I guess... maybe post-install documentation for the udev systems?
> >>
> >> j.
> >>
> >>
> >>  Michal Panczyk wrote:
> >> > Hi Rene.
> >> > I haven't thought about that - I do agree that is is better to make is
> >> > "use at own risk" than to know that "familiar linux fired somebodies
> >> > card":).
> >> >
> >> > Just one thing I found while trying to make my card working.
> >> > In /etc/pcmcia/hostap (or something like that - I don't remember the
> >> > exact path and file name) there is a list of cards handled by the
> >> > hostap module. As far I understood that list it also has distinction
> >> > of the 3.3 v and 5 v cards - there is a line there with something like
> >> > opts="ignore_cis_vcc=1". So I my guess is that we have the list
> >> > already so I it easly to convert it to a "safe config". With the udev
> >> > rule solution it is not the clearest/easiest solution but it may work.
> >> > I don't if that would be possible with the modutils.d way - I have not
> >> > been going too deep into that.
> >> >
> >> > Sorry for generalizing but I don't have my ipaq anywhere near me....
> >> >
> >> > Michal
> >> >
> >> > On 8/12/06, Rene Wagner <rw-CN5wO63fgwogsBAKwltoeQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >> Hi Joshua,
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 13:52 -0700, Joshua Layne wrote:
> >> >> > ACTION=="add", DEVICE=="hostap_cs", SYSFS{func_id}=="0x06",
> >> >> RUN+="/sbin/modprobe hostap_cs ignore_cis_vcc=1"
> >> >> >
> >> >> > That is all my rule consists of and it works for the Netgear MA701
> >> >> >
> >> >> > We are trying to not enter every single card in the udev rules
> >> (as was
> >> >> > done for /etc/pcmcia/hostap_cs.conf in previous versions) -
> >> hopefully
> >> >> > the flexibility of udev will allow us a bit more abstraction.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I would very much like to see this added to 0.8.4, but I have no
> >> >> control
> >> >> > over that - I think Rene or Erik would have to include it.
> >> >>
> >> >> The problem with this is that the VCC checking the driver does is a
> >> >> safety measure. Setting ignore_cis_vcc=1 may result in operating
> >> >> a 3.3V only card at 5V which will likely fry the card.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm fine with documenting this as a "use at your own risk" workaround
> >> >> but I'm a bit reluctant to enable it by default. I'm also going to
> >> >> remove similiar entries from other configuration files unless someone
> >> >> comes up with a good explanation why those would be harmless.
> >> >>
> >> >> Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the work you've done on this and
> >> >> would love to make things work out of the box, but not at the risk
> >> >> of frying anyone's hardware.
> >> >>
> >> >> On a related note, I don't think a udev rule is the right place to
> >> >> set options passed to kernel modules. This should probably go in
> >> >> a file in /etc/modutils (or /etc/modprobe.d if the modprobe from
> >> >> module-init-tools doesn't parse /etc/modutils/*conf any more).
> >> >>
> >> >> Regards,
> >> >>
> >> >> Rene
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Rene Wagner
> >> >> rw at handhelds dot org
> >> >> 4F33 7FD7 93B3 166B BADA  D6F8 71A1 FEA8 58B4 36D0
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> H2200-port mailing list
> >> >> H2200-port-CN5wO63fgwogsBAKwltoeQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> >> https://handhelds.org/mailman/listinfo/h2200-port
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > H2200-port mailing list
> >> > H2200-port-CN5wO63fgwogsBAKwltoeQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> > https://handhelds.org/mailman/listinfo/h2200-port
> >>
> >>