RE: FW: M-SYS Doc Replacements

RE: FW: M-SYS Doc Replacements

[Robert Sandilands]

I really don't want to start a flame war about this, but I think this is a
great example of why open-source is better than proprietary software - and
this discussions should be seen as such. If not that is how I meant it.

Robert Sandilands

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Woodhouse [mailto:dwmw2@infradead.org]
> Sent: 12 February 2002 05:13
> To: Robert Sandilands
> Cc: 'Chris Fowler'; kira brown; linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org
> Subject: Re: FW: M-SYS Doc Replacements 
> 
> 
> 
> robert.sandilands@secureworx.com said:
> >  You are not the only one with that problem. We have the 
> same problem
> > with Kernel 2.4.5. They basically told us that they will 
> not fix this
> > problem after they dodged the issue for about 4 months. 
> 
> Please do not use this list for discussion about binary-only 
> drivers of
> dubious legality. 
> 
> If you have problems with the GPL'd DiskOnChip driver which 
> is in the 2.4 
> kernel, please file a suitable bug report so that we can 
> consider fixing 
> it. Don't just start using the other driver.
> 
> --
> dwmw2
> 
> 

Re: FW: M-SYS Doc Replacements

[David Woodhouse]

robert.sandilands@secureworx.com said:
> I really don't want to start a flame war about this, but I think this
> is a great example of why open-source is better than proprietary
> software - and this discussions should be seen as such. If not that is
> how I meant it.

OK, thanks. Are you now using the GPL'd driver? Do you have any problems 
with it? I don't expect it to be perfect - but if there's something
sufficiently wrong with it that caused you to even _consider_ trying the 
other driver, I'd appreciate a bug report.


--
dwmw2

RE: FW: M-SYS Doc Replacements

[Robert Sandilands]

Ok, long story... 

The first driver we tried was the MTD driver, but that was Kernel 2.4.0 and
the guy that did it, did not know what he was doing - I also suspect there
was a few problems at that stage with the MTD driver. The binary driver did
work and it was therefore used.

Then problems with the Linux kernels forced us to first update to 2.4.3 and
then to 2.4.5 where we are now. Every time other issues forced us to change
and we wanted to keep everything as stable as possible, so we never tried
the MTD drivers in that process. 

Everything seems stable with the 2.4.5 kernel except with the little problem
with the load. We will most likely upgrade our kernel in the next 2-3 months
to 2.4.10 or later and then will also take the step with the MTD driver, but
up to that stage we have to live with the M-systems driver.

>From initial investigation the driver seems fine and with our next upgrade
that is definitely what we will use.

Thank you.

Robert Sandilands

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Woodhouse [mailto:dwmw2@infradead.org]
> Sent: 13 February 2002 11:18
> To: Robert Sandilands
> Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org
> Subject: Re: FW: M-SYS Doc Replacements 
> 
> 
> 
> robert.sandilands@secureworx.com said:
> > I really don't want to start a flame war about this, but I 
> think this
> > is a great example of why open-source is better than proprietary
> > software - and this discussions should be seen as such. If 
> not that is
> > how I meant it.
> 
> OK, thanks. Are you now using the GPL'd driver? Do you have 
> any problems 
> with it? I don't expect it to be perfect - but if there's something
> sufficiently wrong with it that caused you to even _consider_ 
> trying the 
> other driver, I'd appreciate a bug report.
> 
> 
> --
> dwmw2
> 
> 

RE: FW: M-SYS Doc Replacements

[Chris Fowler]

That was my problem too.  I woriginally built prototypes with 2.2.16 kernel.
I needed to go to 2.4.X gor the ramfs stuff.  I have no need for JFFS2.
I finially stopped at 2.4.13 becasue of problems here and there with other
drivers.  At first the MTD driver would not even see my DOC.  I'm using a
BCOM WinNet 6 as my hardware.  I gave up and went directly to the M-SYS
driver and it saw the DOC.  The main problem I was experiencing with 2.4.X
was in the realm of ramdisks.  It appears that the earlier 2.4.X kernels
igoned my ramdisks and overworte the memory.  I used about 3 ramdisks.  I
basically stored the images on the DOC and would allow initrd to write them
to the correct /dev/ram[x] spot.  Sometimes the kenrel could maount it
sometimes it would not. All depended if it overwrote the memory and
filesystem.  I finally got better results with 2.4.13 and then I had to
focus on fixing another buggy driver.  As with most hardware vendors, they
were to slow to update their driver to 2.4.  So 2.2 drivers are in the 2.4
kernel.  I'm too close to release to focus on the MTD driver right now.
I'll integrate it in a second release.  I'll allow it to stablize for one
more year.

Chris


-----Original Message-----
From: linux-mtd-admin@lists.infradead.org
[mailto:linux-mtd-admin@lists.infradead.org]On Behalf Of Robert
Sandilands
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 5:59 AM
To: 'David Woodhouse'
Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org
Subject: RE: FW: M-SYS Doc Replacements


Ok, long story...

The first driver we tried was the MTD driver, but that was Kernel 2.4.0 and
the guy that did it, did not know what he was doing - I also suspect there
was a few problems at that stage with the MTD driver. The binary driver did
work and it was therefore used.

Then problems with the Linux kernels forced us to first update to 2.4.3 and
then to 2.4.5 where we are now. Every time other issues forced us to change
and we wanted to keep everything as stable as possible, so we never tried
the MTD drivers in that process.

Everything seems stable with the 2.4.5 kernel except with the little problem
with the load. We will most likely upgrade our kernel in the next 2-3 months
to 2.4.10 or later and then will also take the step with the MTD driver, but
up to that stage we have to live with the M-systems driver.

>From initial investigation the driver seems fine and with our next upgrade
that is definitely what we will use.

Thank you.

Robert Sandilands

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Woodhouse [mailto:dwmw2@infradead.org]
> Sent: 13 February 2002 11:18
> To: Robert Sandilands
> Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org
> Subject: Re: FW: M-SYS Doc Replacements
>
>
>
> robert.sandilands@secureworx.com said:
> > I really don't want to start a flame war about this, but I
> think this
> > is a great example of why open-source is better than proprietary
> > software - and this discussions should be seen as such. If
> not that is
> > how I meant it.
>
> OK, thanks. Are you now using the GPL'd driver? Do you have
> any problems
> with it? I don't expect it to be perfect - but if there's something
> sufficiently wrong with it that caused you to even _consider_
> trying the
> other driver, I'd appreciate a bug report.
>
>
> --
> dwmw2
>
>

______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/

RE: FW: M-SYS Doc Replacements

[Robert Sandilands]

You are not the only one with that problem. We have the same problem with
Kernel 2.4.5. They basically told us that they will not fix this problem
after they dodged the issue for about 4 months.

Robert Sandilands

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Fowler [mailto:cfowler@outpostsentinel.com]
> Sent: 12 February 2002 02:58
> To: kira brown
> Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org
> Subject: RE: FW: M-SYS Doc Replacements
> 
> 
> My problem is there is the kernel thread named 'msys/fla'  I 
> can't seem to
> get the
> people at M-SYS to tell me what this thing is doing.  My DOC 
> chip is *not*
> mounted.  In fact, I can rmmod
> the driver.  That shouldt ell you the flash is not in use.  
> But this thread
> keeps my load averages around 1.
> 
> If I 'rmmod doc' then my load averages drop to 0.06.  WWhat 
> does this thread
> do to a flash
> that is not in use?
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: kira brown [mailto:kira@hex.linuxgrrls.org]
> Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 7:53 PM
> To: Chris Fowler
> Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org
> Subject: Re: FW: M-SYS Doc Replacements
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2002, Chris Fowler wrote:
> 
> > Is anyone selling M-SYS compatible euqipment.
> 
> No, that's what 'proprietary' means.
> 
> >   I'm apparently the only one
> > who is using Linux on the DOC2000.
> 
> Nope, you're not;  lots of people do.  It's *much* better to use bare
> flash though-  many sources and cheaper too.
> 
> k.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________
> Linux MTD discussion mailing list
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/
> 

Re: FW: M-SYS Doc Replacements

[David Woodhouse]

robert.sandilands@secureworx.com said:
>  You are not the only one with that problem. We have the same problem
> with Kernel 2.4.5. They basically told us that they will not fix this
> problem after they dodged the issue for about 4 months. 

Please do not use this list for discussion about binary-only drivers of
dubious legality. 

If you have problems with the GPL'd DiskOnChip driver which is in the 2.4 
kernel, please file a suitable bug report so that we can consider fixing 
it. Don't just start using the other driver.

--
dwmw2

FW: M-SYS Doc Replacements

[Chris Fowler]

Is anyone selling M-SYS compatible euqipment.   I'm apparently the only one
who is using Linux on the DOC2000.  Or at least from their supports
perspective.
Support sucks and it is always a good idea to source alternative parts.

Re: FW: M-SYS Doc Replacements

[kira brown]

On Mon, 11 Feb 2002, Chris Fowler wrote:

> Is anyone selling M-SYS compatible euqipment.

No, that's what 'proprietary' means.

>   I'm apparently the only one
> who is using Linux on the DOC2000.

Nope, you're not;  lots of people do.  It's *much* better to use bare
flash though-  many sources and cheaper too.

k.

RE: FW: M-SYS Doc Replacements

[Chris Fowler]

My problem is there is the kernel thread named 'msys/fla'  I can't seem to
get the
people at M-SYS to tell me what this thing is doing.  My DOC chip is *not*
mounted.  In fact, I can rmmod
the driver.  That shouldt ell you the flash is not in use.  But this thread
keeps my load averages around 1.

If I 'rmmod doc' then my load averages drop to 0.06.  WWhat does this thread
do to a flash
that is not in use?


-----Original Message-----
From: kira brown [mailto:kira@hex.linuxgrrls.org]
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 7:53 PM
To: Chris Fowler
Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: FW: M-SYS Doc Replacements




On Mon, 11 Feb 2002, Chris Fowler wrote:

> Is anyone selling M-SYS compatible euqipment.

No, that's what 'proprietary' means.

>   I'm apparently the only one
> who is using Linux on the DOC2000.

Nope, you're not;  lots of people do.  It's *much* better to use bare
flash though-  many sources and cheaper too.

k.

RE: FW: M-SYS Doc Replacements

[kira brown]

On Mon, 11 Feb 2002, Chris Fowler wrote:

> If I 'rmmod doc' then my load averages drop to 0.06. WWhat does this
> thread do to a flash that is not in use?

No idea.  We don't have the source, remember?

This is why you should always use open source software.

kira.

RE: FW: M-SYS Doc Replacements

[Russ Dill]

On Mon, 2002-02-11 at 17:58, Chris Fowler wrote:
> My problem is there is the kernel thread named 'msys/fla'  I can't seem to
> get the
> people at M-SYS to tell me what this thing is doing.  My DOC chip is *not*
> mounted.  In fact, I can rmmod
> the driver.  That shouldt ell you the flash is not in use.  But this thread
> keeps my load averages around 1.
> 
> If I 'rmmod doc' then my load averages drop to 0.06.  WWhat does this thread
> do to a flash
> that is not in use?

then use the MTD doc drivers instead, you can even use grub to boot the
thing

Re: FW: M-SYS Doc Replacements

[Russ Dill]

On Mon, 2002-02-11 at 17:52, kira brown wrote:
> 
> 
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2002, Chris Fowler wrote:
> 
> > Is anyone selling M-SYS compatible euqipment.
> 
> No, that's what 'proprietary' means.
> 
> >   I'm apparently the only one
> > who is using Linux on the DOC2000.
> 
> Nope, you're not;  lots of people do.  It's *much* better to use bare
> flash though-  many sources and cheaper too.

I'm using it, but I do prefer bare NOR flash to the NTFL/NAND DOC2000
setup.