[08:54] moin [08:56] mornings [08:56] morning [08:57] (kernel devs crawling out from under their rocks) [08:58] copious amounts of strong coffee required today [08:58] are you dissing my rock? [08:58] cking, and some _heat_ it is cold [08:59] there is ice on my grass [08:59] 'tis cold ere too [09:01] * cking has a audio issues today, I was faffing around with a new MIDI USB dongle and managed to kill audio [09:02] sound waves are frozen? [09:03] apw, No we all love our rocks [09:03] I have a stupid question: if the driver fails to bind, it is the driver's fault, right? (linux 3.8) It's unlikely that there's a bug in the local_pci_probe() call, right? [09:04] tseliot, it sounds unlikely for sure, drivers like to fail to bind, it is their modus operandi, as they are commonly offered everything [09:05] apw: right, and we're talking about the broadcom driver here... [09:06] oh man, man o man [09:06] that thing exhibits a manevolance i have only seen else in (sci-fi) extra-terestrials [09:07] :D [09:09] * smb also wonders what exactly fails to bind means (where, what call, return code?) [09:13] smb: https://launchpadlibrarian.net/155781369/for-comment-21-lp-bug-1247712.log [09:15] * smb was hoping for some higher level describtion that apport vommit... *sigh* [09:15] and the bug report https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/bcmwl/+bug/1247712 [09:15] Launchpad bug 1247712 in linux-lts-raring (Ubuntu Precise) "Unable to install Broadcom STA wireless dirver on 3.8.0-33 / 3.8.0-29 kernel via jockey-gtk" [Undecided,New] [09:16] smb: basically jockey writes to the sysfs tree to unbind and then rebind the driver after the driver installation [09:19] tseliot, Supposedly that is "simpler" than unloading the other broadcom modules after blacklisting them? [09:20] smb: I'm not sure, as I didn't design that part of Jockey [09:20] So it could be that its a problem with the other driver and unbinding. But who knows. (and not sure I want to). [09:20] hehe [09:20] Feels like the only two relevant error messages are [09:20] tseliot, which driver does it try and unbind when brcmwl is loaded [09:20] [ 526.263040] ERROR @wl_dev_intvar_get : error (-1) [09:20] [ 526.263045] ERROR @wl_cfg80211_get_tx_power : error (-1) [09:21] apw: I'm not sure as I have no device with that driver here but the log reports "[last unloaded: bcma]" [09:22] Yeah, the lspci also shows those two as possible alternatives (wl and bcma) [09:23] ok so there isn't a third or anything, the world of brcm is complicated these days [09:23] smb: right, and that (wl_dev_intvar_get, etc.) should be caused by "wl" (I assume) [09:24] apw, Yeah, I don't know like that other thing you get with b43 [09:25] ... ssb I think [09:26] I should probably upload a new broadcom driver and see what happens [09:26] after all, we have a stable release now [09:29] tseliot, ok the EIP is 'somewhere else' not in a bit we have symbols for, so it is most likely we moved on from pci_probe_local [09:31] smb, does one of you or me have a 4313, i know i have a 4312 somewhere, was it you who had the 13 / [09:31] ? [09:32] apw, If I could remember... [09:32] perhaps in your previous travel lappy ? [09:32] It certainly had to use wl but... [09:34] Ok, it says 4312, too [09:38] I'm still looking for a device for local testing [09:39] I wish it were easier to find one === fmasi_afk is now known as fmasi [10:10] cking, just a quick question - if updating /sys/class/backlight/acpi_video0/brightness doesn't do anything, does that sound like busted firmware, or could it be a kernel bug too? [10:10] brendand, it's hard to tell w/o more info really [10:11] cking, that's all i've got right now [10:12] brendand, i guess the best bet is file a bug and it can be investigated [10:12] but I guess it's more likely a firmware bug than anything [10:27] brendand: Kernel bug [10:27] brendand: Especially if it's Intel graphics [10:27] The ACPI video interface shouldn't be used on Windows 8 systems [10:29] mjg59, but the kernel docs say that the firmware interface should be used when available? [10:30] mjg59, which happens to be acpi_video0 [10:31] brendand: Yes. The kernel shouldn't be exposing that interface on Windows 8 systems. But there are bugs in the i915 backlight driver and Intel haven't fixed them. [10:31] mjg59, most interesting [10:31] mjg59, so it's still correct to use the interface where it exists [10:31] mjg59, and the bug is that it does? [10:33] mjg59: hi [10:33] mjg59: is there anything that should be added to the kernel documentation on backlight to make this issue cleaer? [10:35] brendand: Correct [10:35] zyga: No, the bug should just be fixed [10:40] But that needs someone to actually commit to fixing the i915 backlight code [10:40] mjg59: is there a bug on that open anywhere that you know of? [10:41] Unsure off hand [10:41] It was discussed on LKML [10:43] that narrows it down, some discussion on LKML [10:46] https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/6/9/161 perchance? [10:51] Yeah, followed by the complaints that saw it reverted [10:52] ok, I see intel needs to play catchup on this, sigh [10:56] mjg59, what range of hardware does this affect? haswell only? [11:04] brendand: And some Ivy Bridge [11:04] There's certainly an argument that it's a firmware bug, in that the firmware's exposing an interface that doesn't work [11:05] But if Windows doesn't use a firmware interface then it's not going to be tested [11:05] And there's no reasonable expectation that it'll work [11:07] So the kernel really shouldn't attempt to use it [11:14] amen to that [11:14] so much borkage [11:18] bios is junk, shocker [11:18] this is the bug we raised btw: https://launchpad.net/bugs/1250401 [11:18] Launchpad bug 1250401 in linux-lts-raring (Ubuntu) "[Dell Inspiron 5737] brightness could not be controlled by the indicator applet "System settings -> Brightness and Lock"" but sysfs works" [Undecided,New] [11:26] apw, we need a way to test for that for sure [11:46] good old dell firmware === fmasi is now known as fmasi_afk === fmasi_afk is now known as fmasi === fmasi is now known as fmasi_afk [19:50] * rtg -> lunch [20:01] Is there a debug package for the mainline repo kernels available anywhere? [20:02] the btrfs folks want me to run a systemtap script to troubleshoot an issue I'm having, but it complains about missing DWARF information [20:03] cwillu_borken, nope we don't make those, though the source can be reconstruced and you could make them [20:04] that's too bad [20:04] * cwillu_borken starts compiling a kernel [20:04] they are half a gig per build, they are just tooo big to have large numbers thereof [20:06] * cwillu_borken buys apw a 2tb drive to hold them, because that's obviously all that's needed to keep them around right? ;p [20:08] apw, I'm rebasing again after the vfs and net merge. I dropped all aufs patches because of the extensive vfs changes [20:09] rtg, thanks for the warnig [20:09] apw, build testing, then I'll push [20:14] apw, looks like overlayfs is gonna have issues as well [20:55] rtg, no supprises, something for me for the mornign [20:55] apw, yep [21:57] is there a kernel release milestones wiki for trusty? [21:58] manjo, was there one for saucy? [21:58] bjf, no I think the last one was raring [21:58] manjo, you mean a release schedule? [21:58] right release schedule [21:59] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/TrustyTahr/ReleaseSchedule [21:59] manjo, what Sarvatt said [21:59] cool thanks [22:00] looks like the kernel wiki stop updating those links since raring :) [22:01] manjo, there used to be an interlock schedule with had the sru cadence schedule on it [22:01] bjf, so drop dead date for patches would be March 27th ? [22:01] ie sometime before final beta freeze [22:01] manjo, yes i think so [22:01] cool thanks [23:38] bjf: the interlock schedule was mostly out of date, most of the time. As it was updated by hand, and was out-of-sync with every authoritative sources of information. [23:39] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/TrustyTahr/ReleaseSchedule <- is the only authoratative for Trusty release. Same naming pattern goes for all other releases.