<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 4:25 PM, James Cameron <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:quozl@laptop.org" target="_blank">quozl@laptop.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 09:04:52AM -0500, Kevin Gordon wrote:<br>
> Thanks for this detailed update. If i may summarize, if one is<br>
> using a 12 or 13 O/S on any architecture, I'm assuming the<br>
> recommended f/w is the most current, whether on XO-1, 1.5, 1.75 or<br>
> 4. If running 11, well, one is on their own :-)<br>
<br>
</div>Your summary disagrees with my view, which is more general: when you<br>
have a choice of firmware, you should always use the latest.<br>
<br>
The latest supports any operating system version, and contains bug<br>
fixes that reduce your cost of ownership. For volunteers, cost of<br>
ownership is critical, as it increases the number of children you can<br>
serve.<br>
<div><br>
> Any concern I had stems from the cases where some non-XO<br>
</div>> machines/appliances/ gadgets I have advise to not roll back<br>
<div>> firmware, ever, as changes to the NVRAM configuration can introduce<br>
> changes that cause the older firmware to be loaded, but then<br>
> unusable, thereby turning the device into the proverbial brick. My<br>
> understanding, from the above discussion, is that this risk is not<br>
> present with the XO. I may be getting old, but I seem to remember<br>
> being expressly told to *NOT* downgrade my XO-1's from C to B f/w,<br>
> but that was maybe back in the days when my laptop was made out of<br>
> wood.<br>
<br>
</div>I'm happy to get back into discussion after your summary.<br>
<br>
In the general case, we also recommend that you do not downgrade,<br>
firstly because downgrades to version N from version N+1 are not<br>
tested before version N is released (doh), but also because we knew of<br>
certain versions that would brick (in the Q2B and Q2C series).<br>
<br>
However, since then we have tested more downgrades to the point we<br>
know they are safe, and the only bricks due to downgrades happened<br>
before mass production.<br>
<br>
If you are using a prototype XO then you've decided to take the risk.<br>
A prototype may brick on upgrade. An upgrade may be forced by an<br>
operating system install.<br>
<div><br>
> Anecdotally, I have successfully upgraded *many* XO-1s to Q2F19, and<br>
> they are happily running a custom 11.3 build, so there is certainly<br>
> no need to 'roll-back' in that environment. In fact, compared to<br>
> the f/w "as-shipped", I get some nice USB added<br>
> functionality/reliability with some weird-ass hubs/ sticks using the<br>
> newest f/w.<br>
<br>
</div>Yes, those are examples of the bugs fixed. Others include reset of<br>
the clock to a valid date if the clock battery is lost.<br>
<br>
You have all regularly pointed out how important the clock battery is.<br>
<div><br>
> I have not yet upgraded any 11.3 XO 1.5 f/w to current yet. But,<br>
> our 11.3 XO 1.5 deployments are now on Q3C07, and that seems to be<br>
> just peachy. It's on the list to test Q3C16.<br>
<br>
</div>This will bring:<br>
<br>
- antenna testing utility,<br>
- booting from USB drives with embedded hubs, or external USB hubs,<br>
- allow booting if the internal microSD card is missing,<br>
- primitive laptop cloning capability,<br>
- detection of incomplete download of .zd file,<br>
- allow booting from ISO 9660 images, and hybrid images,<br>
- reset of the clock to a valid date if the clock battery is lost,<br>
- lid test,<br>
- serial terminal and remote diagnosis tools,<br>
- startup sound customisation,<br>
- compatibility with USB drives with corrupt directories,<br>
- compatibility with USB drives with empty extended partitions.<br>
<br>
Are you hitting any of these?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I believe we were experiencing those USB hub flakiness issues on the 1.5 as well; I will test that increased function very soon.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
> Why do we continue to use 11.3? [... lack of time ...]<br>
<br>
No worries. Hopefully I've given you some tools that will increase<br>
the time you have.<br>
<br>
(It is irritating that Adam, who started this thread, did not explain<br>
_why_ he wanted to downgrade firmware, leaving us all to speculate.)<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Well, as much as it would be fun to throw Mr. Holt under the bus on this, I must do the mea culpa. :-) I volunteered to lend Tim and him a slew of XO-1's to do AP testing, but I asked for him to confirm that if I had to roll back firmware as well as O/S that it was OK to do so. As it turns out, I then in the interim upgraded all their f/w to current ( using flash u:\q2f19.rom ) before handing them over, and all was good, thereby rendering the initial RFI moot, it would appear. Again, thanks for all the info, it's really helpful going forward.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Cheers</div><div><br></div><div>KG</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div><br>
--<br>
James Cameron<br>
<a href="http://quozl.linux.org.au/" target="_blank">http://quozl.linux.org.au/</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
</div>Devel mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Devel@lists.laptop.org" target="_blank">Devel@lists.laptop.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel" target="_blank">http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>