On Fri, 2009-11-20 at 12:38 -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 14:12 -0800, Inaky Perez-Gonzalez wrote: > > On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 12:53 -0700, Brandon Dell wrote: > > > Hi Inaky, > > > > > > Here is some new debugging messages. > > > > > > **** the outpt of 'tail -f /var/log/messages' when I connect the card > > > and run wimaxd > > > Nov 19 13:02:24 bronx wimaxd[4132]: wimaxd event: Starting... > > > Nov 19 13:02:24 bronx wimaxd[4132]: daemon starts > > > Nov 19 13:02:24 bronx wimaxd[4133]: pdifile is created > > > Nov 19 13:02:24 bronx wimaxd[4133]: Initializing... > > > Nov 19 13:02:25 bronx wimaxd[4133]: wimaxd event: libwimax[wmx0]: > > > Nov 19 13:02:25 bronx wimaxd[4133]: wimaxd event: E: > > > wimaxll_msg_write: generic netlink ack failed: -110 > > > Nov 19 13:02:25 bronx kernel: [ 561.113572] i2400m_usb 4-6:1.0: > > > firmware: requesting i2400m-fw-usb-1.4.sbcf > > > Nov 19 13:02:25 bronx kernel: [ 561.214210] i2400m_usb 4-6:1.0: > > > WARNING!!! non-signed boot UNTESTED PATH! > > > > Hey, hadn't seen this before. This card is pre-production and thus > > completely unsupported. Where did you get it from? > > Is that message about non-signed boot the indicator of a pre-production > card? Just curious for future reference... ISTR you've already removed > the pre-product card IDs from the driver, or was I thinking about > iwlagn? Yep, it is. No laptop sold commercially, unless tampered with, will have one of those. They might work, they might not (as in Brandon's case). Because there is no way to tell what EEPROM they have and if they are a good hw stepping and a host of other things, it is impossible to support them. Not to mention they might have obtained in a dubious way (I am not talking about the final owner, but whoever slipped them out of the regular channels--fell of a truck, for example). Developers who were provided with them (regular channel) can easily get replacements to final versions with the developer support programs.
