[08:34]  * apw yawns
[08:38] <amitk> morning apw 
[08:38] <apw> morning amitk ...
[08:38] <NCommander> morning amitk 
[08:42] <amitk> NCommander: morning
[08:42] <NCommander> morning
[08:43]  * NCommander wonders if we're stuck in an infinite loop or something
[08:43] <apw> heh, heres hoping not
[08:44]  * NCommander has no desire to debug the kernel team
[08:44]  * NCommander runs from the bad pun
[08:53] <amitk> hehe
[09:00] <NCommander> The question is do we need kgdb, or old fashion printk() debugging ;-)
[09:07]  * apw strokes printk
[09:16]  * NCommander sees apw saying "my precious"
[09:16] <apw> something like that
[09:49] <apw> amitk, i take it jaunty a1 will ship with your armel kernel?
[09:51] <amitk> apw: yes. 2.6.27-based kernel.
[09:52] <amitk> BenC is planning to upload a 2.6.28-based kernel today
[10:01] <apw> so that will miss a1 i assume, it sounds like the buildd's are chugging a1 as we speak
[10:04] <rlj> hi all, i experienced LP#291878 and wrote a trivial patch to the kernel (uploded to LP) to add a keyboard quirk for the affected laptop model. the patch works the way it's supposed to on my laptop and solves the issue, but so far no one else affected by the bug has responded to my patch. what's the proper way to get it included into the ubuntu kernel and also getting it upstream?
[10:05] <amitk> apw: yes, 2.6.28 isn't slated for a1
[10:09] <apw> rlj, the patch looks low risk.  normal process is to push the patch upstream to the maintainer in MAINTAINERS in the kernel source, that looks to be 'INPUT (KEYBOARD, MOUSE, JOYSTICK, TOUCHSCREEN) DRIVERS'
[10:10] <apw> you would want to write up a proper description and make sure to add a Signed-off-by: to it
[10:11] <rlj> ah i see, the MAINTAINERS file seems helpful. didn't think to look there. :S
[10:12] <apw> process is always the tricky part.  also i see this patch is really about the kernel but the bug it not against the kernel
[10:12] <rlj> i'd like the affected people to try out the patch to figure out if more DMI matches should be added before submitting upstream, but i can't force them to recompile... :) oh well.
[10:12] <rlj> well, the bug is about "ubuntu" currently, isn't it
[10:13] <rlj> but from my investigation, it seems the proper place to "fix" the broken hardware is with a kernel quirk
[10:13] <apw> no you never can, but its pretty limited to one laptop type and you have that and this makes it work for you
[10:13] <rlj> rather than some kind of userspace quirk
[10:13] <apw> yes, and your fix looks like its of the right form.  the acid test is sending it to the maintainers and seeing if they shout at you
[10:14] <rlj> "the acid test is sending it to the maintainers and seeing if they shout at you" ?
[10:15] <apw> yeah, your patch looks reasonable to a kernel-dev who isn't particularly familiar with keyboard quirks (me), so i would say "looks good, send it to the maintainer"
[10:15] <apw> meaning if its not right they will then tell you what you should have done and it gets fixed
[10:15] <rlj> oh, misinterpreted "the acid test" for some automated software rather than a figure of speech ;)
[10:16] <apw> yeah sorry i often forget that good english does not mean 'knows all those mad engish local sayings'
[10:17] <apw> i have sorted out the bug assignement and states and importance and stuff ...
[10:18] <apw> rlj have you ever submitted a patch upstream before?
[10:18] <rlj> thanks for the pointers. i'll go with the workflow in the MAINTAINERS file in the kernel distribution and try and get it upstream. this means ubuntu will include the fix indirectly after a new 2.6.27 stable kernel has been released from upstream? or should i do something else to make ubuntu get the fix before jaunty?
[10:19] <apw> well its untlikely to make .28 now, as we are mostly in bug-fix only phase for that
[10:19] <apw> so its unlikely to make .28, and jaunty is most likely .28 based
[10:19] <apw> but once its upstream it is much easier to justify picking it up as a backport
[10:19] <apw> actually i may as well take this bug as i know all about the bug now
[10:19] <rlj> ah, true
[10:20] <apw> i can help you get the thing in shape for upstream
[10:20] <rlj> no, haven't submitted before. so  i email the maintainer privetely or just the lkml?
[10:20] <rlj> /s/and not the lkml/
[10:20] <apw> you would send it to the lists as listed in the maintainers entry
[10:21] <apw> so in this case you would send it to Dmitry direct and linux-input direct, and then likely CC: linux-kernel
[10:21] <apw> as that is the 'records everything' list
[10:21] <apw> make sure the patch has a good one liner, a full description after that
[10:22] <rlj> aha
[10:22] <rlj> yeah
[10:22] <apw> then the signoff, and finally make sure the patch is clean via checkpatch
[10:22] <apw> then you are pretty set ... you might also Cc: me as well
[10:22] <apw> query rlj
[11:01] <abogani> smb_tp: Are you around?
[11:01] <smb_tp> abogani, Yes
[11:02] <abogani> smb_tp: If you want i push updated preempt rt support on zinc.
[11:02] <abogani> for Hardy i meant.
[11:03] <smb_tp> abogani, Great, ok. I'll go for them as soon as I am finished fighting my build chroots
[11:04] <abogani> Thank you very much.
[11:05] <smb_tp> abogani, Thanks for updating them so quickly
[11:07] <smb_tp> abogani, mm, one question. This is all based on the current (more or less) master? 
[11:10] <smb_tp> abogani, I am asking because all the big changes for 2.6.24.7 are on the next branch of my tree http://kernel.ubuntu.com/git?p=smb/ubuntu-hardy.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/stable
[11:11] <smb_tp> abogani, Unfortunately importing those changes had quite an impact on rt because there are a few central places changed (like scheduler).. :(
[11:13] <abogani> smb_tp: I failed. I have used master. I'll go to do work for stable branch. 
[11:15] <smb_tp> abogani, I sorry, this might have been unclear... ATM there is much branch juggling on some trees...
[11:15] <abogani> No sorry, please. It's my fault.
[12:07] <apw> smb_tp, if we have bug which needs much more than a kernel fix, but needs a decision on direction and will likely need a coordinated change with other packages, would that be a blueprint/uds type of thing?
[12:09] <smb_tp> apw, I did not have the case myself, yet. But I think it depends on how much has to change. Minimum the affected packages have to be added to the bug and then getting the right "sponsor"
[12:10] <apw> this is the wireless regdom thing sitting on our queue, realistically some infrastructure to tell us where we are is needed
[12:10] <smb_tp> cking, had once a case with lmsensors. I don't think it generally has to wait until UDS
[12:10] <apw> possibly in the short term till thats available, we might place all machines in the EU or something
[12:11] <apw> as that would get us closer to no regression, a very tricky thing indeed
[12:11] <smb_tp> apw, With wireless and what you say this might not be just a little fix in another package but some more re-design. So it is possibly something that needs more discussion
[12:12] <smb_tp> apw, I would not believe placing all machines into EU will get that much liking
[12:13] <apw> they are unrestricted prior to intrepid i believe, and i assume there is no setting for that in the new framework
[12:14] <apw> there doesn't seem to be a good work around here as they have to be genuinly different in different places
[12:15] <apw> so i guess the question is who is the best person to ask about what to do with this problem
[12:16] <apw> do we have anyone in the wider architecting things role
[12:16] <smb_tp> apw, Which sounds like something that not only affects one package like network manager but is a general issue probably with wireless extension? Guess Tim is more down this route than I am. But this particularly sound like an UDS topic
[12:16] <apw> good point tim is wireless guru in our domain, will hastle him next :)
[12:17] <smb_tp> apw, As soon as he gets up which usually is quite early :)
[12:23] <soren> Does any of this look like a wifi nic to you guys? http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/75192/
[12:24] <soren> I'm told that in vista, that box has wifi, but I don't see it.
[12:24] <laga> maybe it's usb?
[12:24] <laga> or the kill switch is acting up?
[12:25] <soren> It might be USB, actually.
[12:29] <amitk> NCommander: 14:18 < cjwatson> could somebody update linux-ports-meta in jaunty to the current ABI please?                                                  
[12:29] <amitk> 14:18  * cjwatson <- uninstallable-packages police 
[12:31] <smb_tp> amitk, NCommander Has someone started something already? Otherwise we could use intrepid-ports-meta.git as starter...
[12:32] <amitk> smb_tp: I was hoping NCommander already started something or would be interested :)
[12:34] <smb_tp> amitk, Ah, yes. :) If he has not yet, using the other git repo as initial source and adapting it should be simple. Would do it but my network is currently sucking due to uploads...
[12:58] <smb_tp> amitk, NCommander You know whether 2.6.27-1 is current ports abi. If yes there is now a git repo at git://kernel.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ubuntu-jaunty-ports-meta.git
[13:03] <amitk> smb_tp: I don't see such a git tree
[13:03] <smb_tp> amitk, gitweb seems not to like it :(
[13:06] <amitk> smb_tp: it takes some time to show up if you just pushed it
[13:06] <amitk> cron job every 20-30 mins
[13:07] <smb_tp> amitk, Well sometimes it seemed faster, but I guess that is rather the effect of being distracted long enough until looking again
[13:07] <smb_tp> amitk, ;-)
[13:08] <amitk> hehe
[13:25] <BenC> Anyone know if rtg has looked into the new wireless regulatory domain stuff showing up in 2.6.28?
[13:29] <smb_tp> BenC, Not sure but apw asked some questions into that direction this morning and probably will get back to him
[13:30] <apw> BenC, from the bug we have i assume that the first steps of that are at least in .27, people are talking problems for high channels in EU as a result
[13:31] <apw> i was wondering how we fixed such 'cross domain' things this morning, and we felt rtg was the right person to poke as step 1
[13:31] <BenC> Well this seems to be all new stuff in 2.6.28
[13:31] <BenC> the built-in static regulatory stuff is getting obsoleted for a userspace daemon that handles it
[13:32] <apw> heh, well thats a step forward at least
[13:33] <rtg> apw: there is a UDS session to talk about CRDA
[13:33]  * apw wonders what that is ...
[13:34] <rtg> apw: central regulatory domain agent
[13:35] <apw> ahh good ... so i assume you are taking a role in that, given your predilictions in the wifi area?
[13:37] <rtg> apw: I helped start the design, though I haven't had much of an active role in the development. That has been Luis Rodriguez who now works for Atheros.
[13:38] <apw> to expalin why i was talking about this at all, we have a bug against intrepid as clearly some changes occured in .27 on the regularty control in the ieeeNNNN layer
[13:39] <apw> and it sounds now that is changing again for .28, and we need to work out what our response is to those
[13:40] <rtg> apw: well, there is a config option in .27 to ignore regulatory controls (which we have set). iin .28 and higher we'll need to implement the crda daemon.
[13:43] <apw> rtg, oh has that changed, the config option, ie should it not longer be a problem in .27
[13:45] <rtg> apw: in Intrepid regulatory compliance is attained through eeprom settings in each adapter, or through beacon location information element detection. typically its the union of those 2 features.
[13:46] <apw> but there is an option to ignore it, and we have it turned on?  if so what version did we do that?
[13:47] <rtg> apw: no, the config option that we have set is to ignore the _lack_ of a crda daemon (though I may be thinking about wireless stuff in LBM)
[13:48] <matiass> Hello, 
[13:48] <matiass> can i ask you about a bug that i reported but i don;t know what to do with it
[13:48] <matiass> about the newest kernel
[13:49] <matiass> ?
[13:50] <apw> ahh i see
[13:50] <apw> bug# ?
[13:51] <matiass> yes
[13:51] <matiass> i reported in bugzilla 
[13:51] <matiass> also here is a thread in forum
[13:51] <matiass> is with the newest kernel and my motherboard of INTEL
[13:51] <matiass> DP43TF
[13:52] <matiass> can you see maybe the thread? there is picture of the bug
[13:52] <matiass> http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=963662
[13:54] <apw> which bugzilla is it reported in, and which bug# ?
[13:54] <matiass> a second.
[13:55] <apw> the forum thread seems to be almost unobtainable from where i am no idea  why
[13:55] <matiass> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/292663
[13:55] <matiass> no way...
[13:55] <matiass> i;m there now
[13:57] <matiass> okey..i see they have problem with the ubuntuforum site
[13:57] <matiass> so,, there is the bug in launchpad
[13:59] <matiass> are you there?
[14:06] <matiass> hello??
[14:18] <speakman> Hi folks! I've just submitted a patch for the ATL1E driver: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/kernel-team/2008-November/003603.html
[14:23] <rtg> speakman: shit, wish I'd known of this patch last night. given the age of the patch I'm surprised it isn't one of the stable updates.
[14:24] <speakman> is it not even in linux-2.6 git?
[14:25] <speakman> Is there a new ubuntu kernel on its way for Intrepid already?
[14:25] <matiass> hi,,,can you help me with my bug and motherboarD?
[14:26] <matiass> here is a thread you can see the image of it
[14:26] <matiass> http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=963662
[14:27] <rtg> speakman: Intrepid 2.6.27-10.20 is on the way
[14:27] <speakman> oooh :(
[14:28] <speakman> is it really not possible to merge this patch before release?
[14:28] <rtg> Intrepid is already released. It'll show up in an update. Create a Launchpad bug and attach the path.
[14:29] <rtg> s/path/patch/
[14:29] <speakman> which lp project?
[14:30] <rtg> speakman: Ubuntu project, linux package
[14:30] <speakman> https://bugs.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-kernel-team
[14:39] <apw> BenC, how is our jaunty kernel is your rebase up yet?
[14:40] <BenC> apw: rebase is done, doing configs now
[14:41] <apw> BenC, so wait a bit and it'll be there
[14:41] <amitk> BenC: I'm doing the armel configs too. Just be done soon
[14:41] <BenC> amitk: ok
[14:41] <apw> rtg, our intrepid tree feels like it is missing the last couple of tags?
[14:42] <speakman> Bugreport + patch submitted: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/300698
[14:42] <rtg> apw: could be. gimme  a bit to wrap up LBM/LRM packaging.
[14:43] <BenC> rtg: I was wondering if you had looked into the new userspace regulatory stuff that the 2.6.28 supports?
[14:43] <rtg> apw: try now.
[14:44] <speakman> rtg: Can you promote it to next kernel release to 8.10 ?
[14:44] <rtg> BenC: I've beem postponing that knowledge until UDS. Luis will be there for the week.
[14:46] <rtg> speakman: I know why this one looks familiar. I read it on LKML a few days ago.
[14:47] <speakman> rtg: okay, it might already be in linus' git?
[14:47] <BenC> rtg: ok, I've kept the built-in compatability enabled, so it shouldn't be required yet
[14:48] <speakman> rtg: this thread: http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/11/11/165
[14:48] <rtg> speakman: commit 7ee0fddfe05f105d3346aa8774695e7130697836
[14:48] <rtg> it'll show up with 2.6.27.8 stable
[14:49] <speakman> oh, that's great news :)
[14:49] <rtg> BenC: right, thats the way to go until I get smarter about it.
[14:49] <speakman> any idea when .8 will be release in public?
[14:50] <rtg> speakman: since I just uploaded last night, it'll likely be at least 2 weeks
[14:50] <speakman> rtg: can I download it somewhere right now?
[14:52] <rtg> speakman: https://edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux
[14:53] <matiass> someone can have a look at my BUG  i put a photo of it in a thread  http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=963662
[14:53] <matiass> thank you very very much,,,, i don;t want to wait maybe until april!!
[14:57] <speakman> this might not be a kernel issue, but how do I make Intrepid prefer my patched version of 2.6.27-7-generic instead of the intrepid version, and still reuse all restricted-* stuff plus upgrades when the new version arrives?
[14:59] <rtg> speakman: if you are building your own kernel, then edit debian/changelog to increment the minor version, e.g. 7.16 --> 7.17
[14:59] <speakman> (if I do apt-get upgrade it will reinstall the intrepid version)
[14:59] <speakman> rtg: oh, great thanks!
[15:00] <apw> rtg perhaps 7.16 -> 7.17~speakman
[15:01] <rtg> apw: 7.17 is safe in this instance since we'll never produce that version number
[15:01] <apw> ahh fair enough
[15:01] <rtg> though the updates kernel is gonna clobber it almost immediately, being -9.19
[15:02] <speakman> okay, which one to prefer? will it still overwrite with new kernel even if I choose ~speakman suffix?
[15:03] <rtg> speakman: yep - perhaps you should wait until the -updates kernel is propagated, download it and add your patch.
[15:06] <speakman> okay, it is not possible to withdraw that kernel and attach this patch..?
[15:06] <rtg> ain't gonna happen
[15:06] <speakman> okay, just asking..
[15:07] <speakman> i think I'll just reapply the patch when that kernel is released. I need the .local domain support in my work. :)
[15:07] <BenC> amitk: I've pushed my configs
[15:07] <amitk> BenC: ok.. still working on mine.
[15:08] <apw> matiass, can you tell me more about what CPU this thing has in it?
[15:08] <BenC> amitk: you have more, so take your time :)
[15:09] <apw> matiass, if you have an older distro on it, then can you can /proc/cpuinfo and paste it into the launchpad bug
[15:09] <speakman> reboot time. Great thanks to you all !
[15:11] <rtg> apw: according to the MB model, its gotta be core-duo or higher
[15:11] <matiass> someopne ca help mme??with this bug   http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=963662
[15:12] <matiass> quad core INTEL Q6600
[15:13] <matiass> i know someone with the same problem ...is the motherboard we think
[15:14] <rtg> matiass: its not likely to get solved here. have you talked to Intel?
[15:15] <matiass> mmm
[15:15] <matiass> i talked to them today. "we dont support linux"
[15:15] <apw> matiass, we really need to get all the information you have in the forum thread into the launchpad bug
[15:15] <rtg> matiass: have you booted _any_ linux kernel on it?
[15:15] <matiass> but listen , with Debian lenny is working, kernel 2.6.26 i think
[15:16] <matiass> okey how can i do this ?????????
[15:16] <apw> if lenny works the it would be good to get the /proc/cpuinfo off there pasted into the bug as well
[15:16] <matiass> tell me what to do i willput it in the launchpad
[15:17] <apw> well there is an image in there that you need to register to get, you could pull that over to launchpad
[15:17] <apw> and it would help to transcribe the text off the screen to save people looking at the image
[15:17] <matiass> okey, can i upload image to launchpad?
[15:18] <apw> i think its call an attachment or something
[15:19] <matiass> okey..
[15:19] <matiass> but /proc/cpuinfo  is needed?    q6600 is not enoguh?
[15:22] <apw> yes that has a large amount of information about how the cpu has been detected
[15:23] <matiass> okey
[15:23] <matiass> i;m not in the place with the PC ...so on sunday i will be
[15:23] <BenC> smb_tp, rtg: That atl1e patch in kernel-team@ looks like a good SRU candidate
[15:23] <matiass> how can  i contact you? or you enter bugzilla also?
[15:24] <rtg> BenC: yes - he's already created an LP report. I've nominated. its gonna show up in stable .8
[15:25] <matiass> you always here in this channel ?  i really sorry i don;t understand a lot about linux...just starting ..bought hardware i thought is compatible and ...have lot of problem
[15:25] <BenC> amitk: I'm rebasing on 2.6.28-rc6 since current git wont even compile because of some header weirdness
[15:25] <BenC> amitk: so no commits yet, I'll be force pushing in a minute
[15:25] <apw> putting the maximum inforamtion you can in launch pad means any of the kernel developers can look over it
[15:26] <BenC> rtg: current rebase includes two reverts of upstream patches from intrepid...I'll point them out in the summary I send to kernel-team@ so I can find out if they can be removed
[15:27] <matiass> thanks , but you think it can be solution maybe that i will compile my own new kernel?
[15:27] <amitk> BenC: ok... 
[15:27] <rtg> BenC: not surprising.
[15:28] <apw> matiass, not sure at this point.  if you know how to build kernels then building a 2.6.27 kernel on your working lenny system would help, if that fails we know its 2.6.27 related
[15:29] <matiass> i will try...i don;t know how :)
[15:29] <matiass> also i mean the error is when you put the disc and just boot 
[15:29] <BenC> ugh
[15:29] <BenC> why does task_struct have to scm_work_list members :/
[15:30] <BenC> *two
[15:30] <BenC> I wonder if that's a bad merge
[15:31] <matiass> also i had 8.04 with old kernel  and did upgrade via internet and then when it upgraded the kernel also you have the BUG after the GRUB 
[15:35] <apw> matiass, so you had a working hardy system and it broke when upgraded
[15:36] <apw> could you still boot the 2.6.24 kernel from hardy on the intrepid updated userspace
[15:37] <matiass> yes. i did it  but
[15:37] <matiass> listen, 
[15:37] <matiass> i have a new very good graphic card from nvidia and you CAN't install new drivers if you don;t have the newest kernel!
[15:37] <matiass> is like all the world against :)
[15:38] <apw> well the world is against closed source drivers, they make life hard for themselves and their users
[15:38] <rtg> BenC: i think its a bad merge, but OMG thats getting to be an ugly structure.
[15:38] <apw> the point of trying these things it to find out what about the machine is broken so youwill be able to run the newer kernel
[15:39] <matiass> understand.
[15:39] <matiass> but you mean the hardware has a problem? i think is incompatibilty
[15:43] <matiass> ?
[15:48] <matiass> apw: what do you mean?
[15:49] <apw> no i mean there is something about your hardware which triggers this issue in the new kernel
[15:49] <apw> to find the bug, we need to find the difference that triggers the failure
[15:49] <amitk> BenC: do you expect to upload today?
[15:49] <apw> so  finding out a 2.6.27 virgin tree boots ok tells us its not in any of those commits
[15:50] <apw> its likely in our local modifications, a much smaller set
[15:50] <apw> but the key is it splits the search space in two and eliminates one of them
[15:55] <amitk> BenC: build testing all the arm configs on my machine is going to take 6+ hrs. Should I push them out first?
[16:02] <amitk> BenC: configs pushed, but not yet tested. Builds ongoing
[16:03] <rtg> lamont: do you know if the special compiler restrictions still apply to hppa for for the Intrepid ports build, e.g., gcc-4.1-hppa64 ?
[16:04] <lamont> rtg: that'd be a doko question
[16:05] <rtg> ok, perhaps a better question is, has anyone run a .27 kernel with hppa?
[16:05] <lamont> it's gonna definitely need gcc-${mumble}-hppa64
[16:05] <rtg> whats kyle doing with it these days?
[16:06] <doko> rtg: which restrictions? it would be nice to use the 4.3 compiler if possible
[16:07] <rtg> doko: well, thats kind of what I'm asking. does the hppa .27 kernel build work with 4.3 ?
[16:07] <doko> rtg: I didn't check
[16:08] <rtg> doko:  ok, I'll work with lamont to get the right tool set.
[16:09] <lamont> rtg: see also other window
[16:24] <BenC> amitk: is it just the configs or do you have all the arch setup in there too?
[16:36] <Kano> hi rtg , could you fix the 2.6.28 git? there are double fixes included
[16:36] <Kano> for example acbdf3b2fb51c8d197b1cca5dd4d0f54add69d6d
[16:37] <rtg> Kano: its still a work in progress. BenC and amitk are in the middle of it right now.
[16:38] <Kano> btw. i like that you now use the complete 2.6.27.x fixes not only parts
[16:42] <rtg> yeah - it didn't make sense to me to ignore all those good bug fixes.
[16:42] <Kano> well for me too ;)
[16:42] <Kano> i disliked the selected fixes
[16:57] <NCommander> doko, I'm working at removing 4.1 from the ports kernel (I haven't done HPPA, but PowerPC and SPARC are liberated :-))
[17:00] <cking> rtg: did you know of any Wifi issues with the Ralink RT2571WF PCI-E Mini (driver rt73usb) - I have somebody report it cannot connect reliably with WPA
[17:00] <Kano> cking: well for rt there are often 2 usb drivers available
[17:01] <rtg> cking: is it the OEM driver?
[17:01] <Kano> also pci-e is never rt73usb
[17:01] <Kano> next, the official driver for ralink needs a change if you want to use wpa supplicant
[17:01] <mjg59> cking: There's a clue in the name
[17:02] <mjg59> Hm. I guess you /could/ put a USB wifi card on a mini PCI-E slot.
[17:02] <mjg59> Would seem a little strange, but still.
[17:02] <cking> whoaa.. hold on.. 
[17:02] <cking> rtg: which one is the OEM version
[17:03] <cking> ..this is hardy by the way
[17:03] <rtg> cking: oh
[17:03] <rtg> I can't remember if we packaged the OEM driver.
[17:03] <cking> Kano: I would agree with that initial statement, but lsmod tells me different.. hence I am mystified
[17:03] <rtg> smb_tp worked on the rt25xx backlport
[17:04] <Kano> it works better with ndiswrapper anyway
[17:04] <cking> rtg: OK - thanks
[17:04] <Kano> just not with draft-n
[17:09] <abogani> smb_tp: I did it.
[17:10] <abogani> smb_tp: Do you want a "request pull" through ml?
[17:13] <Kano> rtg: do you use all bugfixes for 2.6.24 now too?
[17:13] <rtg> Kano: smb_tp is working on it. I have not looked at the git repo lately
[17:53] <smb_tp> rtg, That is rt2860
[20:14] <Zhenech> Is there any reason, linux-libc-dev does not ship video/uvesafb.h?
[20:33] <haydn> I know this might be off topic, but could some quickly help me? I need know how to install kernel 2.6.24 in an Ibex install. I'm trapped by the busybox intramfs timeout error! Please no one else can seem to help.
[22:15] <amitk> BenC: all the arch setup is in there too