lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <8761bbqker.fsf@nemi.mork.no> Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 14:33:32 +0100 From: Bjørn Mork <bjorn@...k.no> To: Kristian Evensen <kristian.evensen@...il.com> Cc: Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Aleksander Morgado <aleksander@...ksander.es> Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: qmi_wwan: MC73xx interface 10 is not QMI Kristian Evensen <kristian.evensen@...il.com> writes: > On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Kristian Evensen > <kristian.evensen@...il.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Bjørn Mork <bjorn@...k.no> wrote: >>> Just to be sure: You do have a configuration where interfaces #10 and >>> #11 are visible, but none of them respond to any QMI at all? Not even >>> CTL SYNC? Could you get a minimal usbmon trace of that? > > Here is a minial usbmon where I send SYNC to interface 10. After I > made the trace, I tried interface 8 (to make sure that there was > nothing wrong with modem) and it worked fine. ModemManager or any > similar tool is not running. Thanks. > The firmware is SWI9X15C_05.05.02.00 r19147 carmd-fwbuild1 2013/11/15 13:54:28 That is pretty old relative to this hardware. First commercial release? I don't really want to push you to do an upgrade, but it would sure be nice to have this test repeated on a recent firmware version. Not that I can spot anything particularily promising in the release notes. Did you have one of these 9x15 modems, Aleksander? Did you ever verify whether the additional QMI interface(s) worked? I did find our previous discussions about these two RMNET1 and RMNET2 functions, e.g: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libqmi-devel/2014-July/000875.html and it seems to indicate that both work as long as you configure them for 802.3 framing. But that could just be an information feedback loop... > -Kristian > ffff8800cbbad240 1429569304 S Ii:3:050:7 -115:256 10 < > ffff8800cbbadb40 1429569566 S Co:3:050:0 s 21 00 0000 000a 000c 12 = 010b0000 00000001 27000000 > ffff8800cbbadb40 1429570337 C Co:3:050:0 0 12 > > ffff8800cbbad240 1434576966 C Ii:3:050:7 -2:256 0 > ffff8800cbbad240 1434577061 S Ii:3:050:7 -115:256 10 < > ffff8800cbbadb40 1434577154 S Co:3:050:0 s 21 00 0000 000a 000c 12 = 010b0000 00000001 27000000 > ffff8800cbbadb40 1434577968 C Co:3:050:0 0 12 > > ffff8800cbbad240 1439584564 C Ii:3:050:7 -2:256 0 > ffff8800cbbad240 1439584687 S Ii:3:050:7 -115:256 10 < > ffff8800cbbadb40 1439584829 S Co:3:050:0 s 21 00 0000 000a 000c 12 = 010b0000 00000001 27000000 > ffff8800cbbadb40 1439585699 C Co:3:050:0 0 12 > > ffff8800cbbad240 1440477055 C Ii:3:050:7 -2:256 0 Hmm, it's been a long time since I've looked at one of these so I might be wrong, but I must admit that it looks pretty dead. I assume the ENOENT Ii callback status indicates a timeout? Bjørn -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists