Problems with Ambicom BT-2000E
Hello,
I am the not-so-proud owner of an Ambicom BT-2000E card.
I tried using it both on a Zaurus running OZ 3.5.4.1 (kernel 2.6.16) and a Tablet PC with similar kernel version (might have been 2.6.16.14).
Pcmcia configuration for bluetooth still says this card should get the bt950_cs module, which I understood is a goner.
I modified the pcmcia package to use "serial_cs" class bluetooth for this device, however - the best I get is that upon insertion of the card I get a ttyS0 (I can see on dmesg) and after modifying the bluetooth script itself to run hciattach /dev/ttyS0 ericsson - I see on hciconfig a device with 00:00:00:00:00:00 as the mac address (which I can't take up) and bluetooth will not work.
Can anyone with knowledge about this card direct me? or tell me any other way to make this card working under kernel 2.6?
Thank you,
ERan
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
Bluez-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bluez-users
Hello,
Quoted 2 lines · Eran
Can anyone with knowledge about this card direct me? or tell me any other way to make this card working under kernel 2.6?
I don't know this card, but if its UART is a 16C950 and it does run fine with a kernel 2.4 you might try the kernel patch which I have posted on this list some time ago concerning a Socket Bluetooth CF Card.
Regards,
Mathias
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
Bluez-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bluez-users
Mathias
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Can anyone with knowledge about this card direct me? or tell me any other way to make this card working under kernel 2.6?
I don't know this card, but if its UART is a 16C950 and it does run fine with a kernel 2.4 you might try the kernel patch which I have posted on this list some time ago concerning a Socket Bluetooth CF Card.
this is the same thing you discussed on lkml almost a year ago? Did Russel King ever follow up after that last submission of the patch?
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/9/9/158
brad
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
Bluez-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bluez-users
Hello Brad,
Quoted 8 lines · Brad Midgley
Quoted 3 lines
I don't know this card, but if its UART is a 16C950 and it does run fine with a kernel 2.4 you might try the kernel patch which I have posted on this list some time ago concerning a Socket Bluetooth CF Card.
this is the same thing you discussed on lkml almost a year ago? Did Russel King ever follow up after that last submission of the patch?
yes, that's still the same thing. Unfortunately I didn't get any response after that post even when e-mailed Russell directly, and back then I didn't have the time to push it any further.
However it wouldn't be that bad not having to patch each new kernel again and again... maybe you know some contact to get this thing solved?
Regards,
Mathias
Signature · 14 lines
Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover. (Mark Twain) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Bluez-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bluez-users
Mathias
Quoted 2 lines
However it wouldn't be that bad not having to patch each new kernel again and again... maybe you know some contact to get this thing solved?
I don't know anyone like that--sorry.
One reason I think it got overlooked is you claimed to support hardware that you didn't have around to test. Keep the scope and impact limited and if it supports something new as a side effect, you may want to keep that under your hat if you don't have someone to test it.
The other route you can go is ask a vendor to support it. I think ubuntu is in a good position for that. If people start to benefit from a vendor patch, the kernel guys may see it differently.
Brad
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
Bluez-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bluez-users
Marcel Holtmann
maintainerHi Brad,
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 2 lines
However it wouldn't be that bad not having to patch each new kernel again and again... maybe you know some contact to get this thing solved?
I don't know anyone like that--sorry.
Quoted 8 lines
One reason I think it got overlooked is you claimed to support hardware that you didn't have around to test. Keep the scope and impact limited and if it supports something new as a side effect, you may want to keep that under your hat if you don't have someone to test it.
The other route you can go is ask a vendor to support it. I think ubuntu is in a good position for that. If people start to benefit from a vendor patch, the kernel guys may see it differently.
most of the times, Russell is kinda busy. Prepare a clean patch against the latest 2.6 repository of Linus and post it to LKML for inclusion.
Regards
Marcel
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
Bluez-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bluez-users