Hi!
Kohjinsha subnotebook seems to contain wifi with USB IDs 0x18e8,

0x6206... I hope that to be compatible with

net/wireless/rt2x00/rt73usb.c .
[Sidenote: could we add some real author info into rt73usb.c?]
I did this on 2.6.23-rc8-mm1 kernel (The RT hack may not be

neccessary), but then it oopses somewhere in softmac layer. I'll try

to play with it some more.
If you have any ideas, let me know.

								Pavel
--- clean-mm/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt73usb.c	2007-10-09 09:32:08.000000000 +0200

+++ linux-mm/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt73usb.c	2007-10-19 22:19:45.000000000 +0200

@@ -1580,7 +1580,6 @@
 	if (!rt2x00_rev(&rt2x00dev->chip, 0x25730)) {

 		ERROR(rt2x00dev, "Invalid RT chipset detected.\n");

-		return -ENODEV;

 	}
 	if (!rt2x00_rf(&rt2x00dev->chip, RF5226) &&

@@ -1588,7 +1587,6 @@

 	    !rt2x00_rf(&rt2x00dev->chip, RF5225) &&

 	    !rt2x00_rf(&rt2x00dev->chip, RF2527)) {

 		ERROR(rt2x00dev, "Invalid RF chipset detected.\n");

-		return -ENODEV;

 	}
 	/*

@@ -2080,6 +2078,7 @@

 	{ USB_DEVICE(0x148f, 0x2671), USB_DEVICE_DATA(&rt73usb_ops) },

 	/* Qcom */

 	{ USB_DEVICE(0x18e8, 0x6196), USB_DEVICE_DATA(&rt73usb_ops) },

+	{ USB_DEVICE(0x18e8, 0x6206), USB_DEVICE_DATA(&rt73usb_ops) },

 	{ USB_DEVICE(0x18e8, 0x6229), USB_DEVICE_DATA(&rt73usb_ops) },

 	{ USB_DEVICE(0x18e8, 0x6238), USB_DEVICE_DATA(&rt73usb_ops) },

 	/* Senao */
--

(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek

(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

-

Hi
This device is NOT a Ralink USB wifi adapter!
Get the windows driver in this link and see for yourself.

http://www.conitech.it/conitech/ita/risorse.asp?cod=CN402USB

(ISSC W89C35 802.11bg WLAN USB Adapters (Native Wifi driver))
Case Closed.
Luis Correia

rt2x00 project administrator

-

Thanks a lot. With some patches, I got driver from conitech.it to

compile and partly work on 2.6.23. I can now transmit packets but not

yet receive them.
(use Makefile.26 instead of Makefile)
								Pavel
--- hal_142_o.ofic/linux/sysdef.h	2006-11-29 11:12:10.000000000 +0100

+++ hal_142_o/linux/sysdef.h	2007-10-21 22:21:13.000000000 +0200

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@

 // The definition WB_LINUX is a keyword for this OS

 //=============================================================================

 #define WB_LINUX

-#define WB_LINUX_WPA_PSK

+//#define WB_LINUX_WPA_PSK

 //#define _WPA_PSK_DEBUG
 //#define _IBSS_BEACON_SEQ_STICK_

Only in hal_142_o/linux: w35und.ko

Only in hal_142_o/linux: w35und.mod.c

--- hal_142_o.ofic/linux/wb35reg.c	2006-11-29 11:43:58.000000000 +0100

+++ hal_142_o/linux/wb35reg.c	2007-10-21 22:19:27.000000000 +0200

@@ -879,6 +879,7 @@

 	if( (pHwData->phy_type == RF_WB_242) ||

 		(pHwData->phy_type == RF_WB_242_1) ) // 20060619.5 Add

 	{

+		extern void phy_calibration_winbond(hw_data_t *phw_data, u32 frequency);

 		phy_calibration_winbond ( pHwData, 2412 ); // Sync operation

 		Wb35Reg_ReadSync( pHwData, 0x103c, &BB3c );

 		Wb35Reg_ReadSync( pHwData, 0x1054, &BB54 );

--- hal_142_o.ofic/linux/wbusb.c	2006-11-29 11:02:54.000000000 +0100

+++ hal_142_o/linux/wbusb.c	2007-10-21 22:16:19.000000000 +0200

@@ -28,7 +28,6 @@

 	};

 #else

 	static struct usb_driver wb35_driver = {

-			.owner =	THIS_MODULE,

 			.name =		"w35und",

 			.probe =	wb35_probe,

 			.disconnect = wb35_disconnect,

--- hal_142_o.ofic/wblinux.c	2006-11-29 10:39:54.000000000 +0100

+++ hal_142_o/wblinux.c	2007-10-21 23:49:07.000000000 +0200

@@ -98,7 +98,8 @@

 			BufSize = pRxLayer1->BufferQueue[i].BufferSize;

 			BufAddr = pRxLayer1->BufferQueue[i].pBufferAddress;

 			//DataDmp(BufAddr, BufSize, 0);

-	        eth_copy_and_sum( skb, BufAddr, BufSize, 0 );

+			//	        eth_io_copy_and_sum( skb, BufAddr, BufSize, 0 );

+		skb_copy_from_linear_data(skb, BufAddr, BufSize);

 	  ...
[ message continues ]

I couldn't find any license info immediately visible; are you sure it's

GPL?
-

Yes, I'm quite sure. There's MODULE_LICENCE("GPL"), IIRC.

								Pavel
--

(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek

(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

-

That doesn't say much, some manufacturers add that line to their driver

 just to prevent the module loader complaining about a non-GPL driver...
There should be a copyright notice or a license file accompanied with

the driver that clearly states the license of the driver.
Ivo

-

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 23:52:57 +0200
no they don't.. nobody is that stupid.

-

Lacking an explicitly stated license it can be argued that, since the

MODULE_LICENSE() macro is meant to define the actual license on the code,

this code is GPL. No, it isn't an explicit definition, but lacking any other

signs of the license, the implicit declaration of it being GPL is (or should

be) enough to deflect charges of copyright infringement.
DRH
--

Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.

-

Yep, I believe this driver is GPLed. They published the source and

there's nothing to suggest otherwise, and there's explicit:
#define DRIVER_AUTHOR                   "Jeff Lee<YY_Lee@issc.com.tw>"

#define DRIVER_DESC                             "IS89C35 802.11bg WLAN USB Driver"

MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
									Pavel
--

(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek

(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

-

If there isn't an explicit COPYING or LICENSE file or something

distributed with the driver, and if there aren't copyright/license

headers at the top of the files in question, I have a hard time agreeing

that MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") _definitely_ means that the author has GPL-ed

the driver intentionally.  Of course that's the way it's supposed to

work, but to me this doesn't pass sufficient muster to be definitely

called GPL without additional clarification.
Dan
-

Lacking any other indication MODULE_LICENSE is supposed to mark the license

that the code is being distributed under. If companies are intentionally

mis-using this to get around the "internal interfaces" limitations (where

some interfaces are not available unless the module is GPL'd) and the warning

message printed in the logs when the module is not GPL'd then they are

(technically) in violation of the law. (interfaces that are GPL only are

considered so internal to the kernel that using them makes your code GPL

because of the inclusion of GPL'd code. And no - I am not going to get into

that discussion - it's pointless)
In the end, using MODULE_LICENSE for any purpose other than declaring the

chosen license for the code is deceptive. So it is easily arguable that by

not including any license with the code other than the MODULE_LICENSE

statement and then trying to prosecute because MODULE_LICENSE doesn't

accurately state the license on the code is entrapment and illegal.
DRH
--

Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.

-

Step 1: Ask the author.
Step 2: if the author doesn't reply, then we can have this discussion
MODULE_LICENSE is just a random string that could have been added by

anybody, not necessarily the author.  Unless you can determine the

intent of the author explicitly, a single MODULE_LICENSE is not

sufficient to concretely determine the license of the code.  It's only

in one file.  There is nothing to explicitly state the overall license

of the whole work unless each file has a header referring to the license

or unless there is a license document distributed with the code as a

whole.
In the absence of any other indication, MODULE_LICENSE doesn't not

concretely determine the license of the code.  You can assume it does,
Just because the module may be loading illegally says _nothing_ about
"deceptive" is also not "this code code is definitely GPL".  Doesn't

matter whether it's deceptive or not.  We do not know that the code is
Arguable doesn't mean that it's concrete enough to pass legal muster.  I

am not a lawyer, but this just doesn't pass the bar.
Dan
-

The intent of MODULE_LICENSE is to mark the license on the code. This is 
No, but it is a mis-use of MODULE_LICENSE, which is supposed to state the 
Deception in order to create a situation whereby you can prosecute people for

violation of the law is illegal. Therefore not distributing the code with any

indication as to the license other than MODULE_LICENSE and attempting to

prosecute afterwards is illegal. QED: even if the code is not GPL'd (and such

could be learned by contacting the author), the fact that it ships without

any indication of the license other than MODULE_LICENSE implies that the

license is what is stated and prosecution on the grounds that it isn't 
I know several and have asked one that is a very good friend. He agreed with

my interpretation of the presented facts - that since the only indication of

what the license on the code might be is MODULE_LICENSE it can be safely

assumed that the license is what that states. Any attempt to later prosecute

because the license is not what is stated would constitute entrapment - which

is illegal.
DRH
PS: note that all legal information contained here-in is only known to be

valid in the US.
--

Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.

-

I asked Tom Callaway, who heads up all the legal/licensing issues for

Fedora.  He said essentially "it won't be in Fedora" on just the basis

of MODULE_LICENSE.  I can run it past Red Hat lawyers too.  It's just

not clear with only MODULE_LICENSE, and not clear pretty much means

Don't Touch until it becomes clear.
-

I have to agree with this. There are better ways to determine the license -

including contacting the author. However, in the lack of any other source of

information about the license MODULE_LICENSE can be used as a (somewhat)

defensible position. It'd cost a lot of money and be a very hard fight,

though - which is one reason why no company would (or should) take the

chance. Nor should any person, unless they happen to have the money to fight

the battle.
--

Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.

-

So what about contacting the vendor and asking?

-

Hi!
You are listed as author of IS89C35 802.11bg WLAN USB Driver. That

driver has clear MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") tag, but not other notices.
Is it safe to assume whole sources are to be distributed under GPLv2?

(Or is it GPLv2 or later?)
--

(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek

(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

-

Pavel,
I sent mail as you requested on Sunday to Jeff Lee but haven't heard

back yet.  I can't find any generic contact email addresses for ISSC

Taiwan or the Italian company that produced the adapter in question,

unfortunately.
-

Okay, I posted note to my blog, perhaps someone speaks up.

									Pavel

--

(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek

(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

-

http://www.issc.com.tw/contact.htm seems to be web based form. I

clicked something into it, lets see what happens.
(They ask for details like my fax number/phone number, and they can't

even spell :-().

								Pavel

--

(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek

(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

-

Hi!
this is no longer a rt2x00 issue, maybe we all could keep it away from

the rt2400-devel list?
thanks,

Luis Correia

rt2x00 project administrator

-

You are right, sorry for confusion.
Now, the strange part comes. They have linux sources on their web

pages... for 2.6.9 and 2.6.11. If anyone ported them forward, please

let me know, otherwise I'll take a look at porting them.

								Pavel

--

(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek

(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

-

Is there any reason you assume it is a rt73usb device,
You mean expanding the project name to the full list of developers in
Both removals of -ENODEV are completely wrong. If the device does not pass the above

2 checks it is _not_ a rt73usb device. And forcing the driver to work with the device will

result in all kinds of problems.
If rt2x00 is loaded and detected the device, it should print out a debug message that starts with:

"Chipset detected - " What is in your case the complete line?
Ivo

-

At least put name and email of lead developer there, or something.
I do not think "copyright sourceforge project" is okay thing to do --

unless the sf project legaly exists and you did some paperwork.

								Pavel

--

(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek

(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

-

Thats an incorrect assumption. USB ID's listed in rt73usb don't even

guarentee that the device contains a rt73usb chipset since some manufacturers

produce cards with different chipsets while keeping the USB ID the same.

So the case that the card false in the 6xxx range says absolutely _nothing_.
Ivo

-

Well, see the other mail, it seems like rt73usb partially communicates

with the card.
What info would be useful in determining what is this card similar to?

Boot windows and look for driver name?

								Pavel

--

(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek

(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

-

If you add a USB ID to the driver, then you are telling it to communciate to
Looking at the name of the windows driver is indeed usually a good start,

but you don't need to boot to windows to check that. How about looking

at the driver name on the driver CD, or on the support website of the

manufacturer.
Ivo

-

Hi
I'm currently going throught the manufacturer's website (in Japanese)

to try and figure out which wireless chipset it is.
Only one driver to go and I'm not even sure it is the wireless driver...
Luis Correia

-

Ok, I guess I should include more complete debug output.
phy0 -> rt2x00usb_vendor_request: Error - Vendor Request 0x09 failed for offset 0x0000 with error -32

phy0 -> rt73usb_validate_eeprom: EEPROM recover - MAC: 66:76:2b:e8:68:e7

phy0 -> rt2x00usb_vendor_request: Error - Vendor Request 0x07 failed for offset 0x3000 with error -32

phy0 -> rt2x00_set_chip: Info - Chipset detected - rt: 1300, rf: 0000, rev: c03c0ae0

phy0 -> rt73usb_init_eeprom: Error - Invalid RF chipset detected
...so, I think hardware is indeed quite similar to what rt73usb driver

expects...?
									Pavel

--

(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek

(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

-

- A incorrect RF chipset. (valid values are: 1, 2, 3 or 4). Another indication of a incorrect device.

- A completely bogus chipset revision. A valid rt73 device has the revision "2573X" Where only the
No. You can assume you are forcing rt73 to control a non-rt73 device.

The fact that you had to hack to bypass the RT and RF chipset validation also confirms that,

those checks were there for a reason. Namely to make sure the corect driver was being used for the device.
Ivo

-