I have compiled wpa_supplicant code downloaded from http://hostap.epitest.fi/wpa_supplicant/ version is 0.7.3. I am getting No Drivers installed while trying to run the built wpa_supplicant. Am i missing anything in its compilation? Has anyone faced this error? Is there any setting to enable drivers also while compiling wpa_supplicant and wpa_cli?
Does your kernel automatically load the correct module for your wireless card? If not, modprobe the correct module, and try again.
Also, the wpa_supplicant(8) page's AVAILABLE DRIVERS section says that only a handful of cards are supported (disappointing, but at least you could look through the list before buying a card), and that support for the drivers may or may not be compiled in. So make sure your card's driver is on the list, and make sure you've compiled wpa_supplicant(8) with the correct driver.
You have to choose a driver to use by enabling it in .config file of wpa_supplicant before build. They will be in the form CONFIG_DRIVER_<name>.
CONFIG_DRIVER_WEXT and CONFIG_DRIVER_NL80211 are generic that suits many hardware.
Related
I may have a couple assumptions of Linux incorrect about the Linux system, and for that I apologize.
I have been educating myself on the Android and Linux systems for a while now and I started looking into installing a custom boot loader and Linux system onto an older Samsung tablet. Immediately upon looking into the feasibility of this, most of the answers I could find were that it wasn't possible because you would need the drivers that are being used by the android kernel to communicate with the OEM hardware in whatever Linux kernel you are installing.
I have one of these tablets rooted and I believe I may have found the drivers I need (not sure on that yet), and so I guess my question is, is it possible to take the drivers and put them into a Linux kernel within a distribution install image and install Linux on the device (using also a custom boot loader)?
I presume because someone hasn't done this before there is a pretty good reason why, but I am basically looking to be able to use Linux on my old tablet without the resources being taken from Android, and personally in my opinion, if I don't need Android and can install Linux straight on to the machine, then why keep it?
In the long run I am looking into LFS to create a custom distribution that can be installed on these tablets, but the most important question to me right now is if I do create this distribution can I get the drivers that the hardware needs (and even then will my kernel be able to use them?).
I also understand that some of these drivers may be proprietary drivers provided by the manufacturer, but I am not looking to profit off of this but instead research the feasibility of a better personal on-the-go computing setup.
I may be terribly wrong on how I may have described some things, so here are some of my assumptions:
The .ko files in the Android /lib/modules/ directory are the static kernel drivers I am looking for for that device.
The drivers aren't written for specifically the Android system, but for all Linux variants and would be compatible with another distribution.
If the drivers were written for the Android system, then one would be able to edit or modify those drivers to work with a different distribution.
One could "put the drivers into an installation image", or if not, then one would have to compile the kernel from source with those static drivers.
TL:DR, If this all just amounts to rambling, here are my specific questions:
Is it possible to copy the static kernel drivers of a rooted Android device to something like the SDcard?
Is it then possible to "put" or "compile" those same static drivers into a Linux distribution before installing it onto said tablet using something like Odin, or the like?
I had an issue with trying to get the wpa_supplicant to run on board running a custom Embedded Linux distribution. After some debugging it turned out that it was because the domain type PF_PACKET was not supported by the kernel:
drv->eapol_tx_sock = socket(PF_PACKET, SOCK_DGRAM, 0);
This is supported by the af_packet module and loading it beforehand fixed the problem. I noticed that it also has the alias "pf-net-17" and it appears that the kernel can load this module at runtime if requested from user-space via the alias. I tested this in another Embedded Linux distribution and sure enough this seems to be the case. It was loaded after the supplicant was called.
Does anyone know why this functionality is not working in the first setup? Maybe I missed a kernel setting?
There are basically 2 reasons why this worked on another system and not on your board:
the PF_PACKET was configured to be built in the kernel or not as a module.
The af_packet module was automatically loaded at runtime, either as a dependancy to another module or as a module to be automatically loaded at boot
I suggest that you read this document about module loading which is quite concise, yet complete and precise.
A way to fix your problem would be to make sure that depmod was run for your target system so that the module dependancy for your build is updated of load the af_packet module automatically at boot.
Another place to look at is udev, which is meant to load modules according to the devices detected by the kernel. Maybe this is also missing/misconfigured in your system.
A friend of mine bought a laptop that unfortunately comes with an unsupported touchpad. The good news is that it comes with full documentation.
Is this documentation enough to make a driver with multi-touch support?
Is it advisable to base the driver from another (similar) touchpad driver as a starting point? If so, which one shall I use?
As far as I know, this controller is already supported by Linux. Just make sure your kernel version is recent enough to have the driver/input/mouse/byd.c source file, and that it is enabled by checking for the presence of the CONFIG_MOUSE_PS2_BYD token in your kernel configuration.
I'm complety new to this but I finally got around to building a Linux kernel so far so good. I am following a guide here:
A10-OLinuXino-LIME
My problem/concern is now I am in a .config menu and I've been searching online to no avail to determine what does it mean by a modularizes features verse includes, like should I switch to if I want those features to be there?
Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated it! I'm primarily doing this to include WiFi usb drivers I will be needing.
It depends on what system you run this kernel. If it's an embedded system, then you will probably be more concerned about memory benefits. In RAM you can win about several Kbytes per module. For the devices are not represented in the system/hardware, it then has a sense to put some drivers on Modules. Some modules can be taking more time when the kernel starts, and it is probably better to load them later, when the system is running.
You will probably be concerned about disk space, if you put some stuff Compiled-in so you can have a benefit because you don't need to have a module loading utility.
Have a look at this thread as well
I'm primarily doing this to include WiFi usb drivers I will be needing.
Its not necessary to build the complete kernel unless to build a USB WiFi driver. All you need is the kernel headers installed. From make menuconfig select the module you want to build, choose M, save the .config. This will build a module which can be loaded, instead of getting compiled as a part of the vmlinux image.
I am a beginner at DDK/WDM driver developing field.
I have a task which involves porting a virtual device driver from x86 to x64 (intel).
I got the source code, I modified it a bit and compiled it succesfuly with DDK (build environments). But when I tried to load it on a ia64 Windows7 machine it didn't want to load.
Then I tried some simple examples of device drivers from
--http://www.codeproject.com/KB/system/driverdev.aspx (I put '--' to be able to post the hyperlink) and from other links but still the same problem.
I hear on a forum that some libraries that you use to link are not compatible with the new machines and suggested to link to another similar libraries...but still didn't worked.
When I build I use "-cefw" command line parameters as suggested.
I do not have an *.inf file asociated but I'm copying it in system32/drivers and I'm using WinObj to see if next restart it's loaded into the memory.
I also tried this program ( http://www.codeproject.com/KB/system/tdriver.aspx ) to load the driver into the memory but still didn't worked for me.
Please please help me...I'm stuck on this and my deadline already passed.
I feel I'driving nuts in here trying to discover what am I doing wrong.
So, to summarize everything:
You need to build for the corect architecture (x64 for Intel/AMD CPUs).
You MUST sign your driver. You must do this even in test mode with a self signed certificate. There is no alternative.
You MUST use an .inf file to install. If the driver is non-pnp then you don't need an .inf file, but it is very unlikely that the driver is non-pnp. In that case you need to manually create the associated service for the driver in the service control manager with sc.exe or programmatically with the SCM API. If the driver isw pnp (most likely) you must install it via an .inf file (with devcon.exe or other way). Also, installing it is not the same as loading it. For that, the appropriate hardware must be present or you must enumerate it in software (with devcon.exe for exemple).
I did not wrote a driver, but on the basis on what I hear from colleagues: Are your driver digitaly signed? If not, look for information on loading unsigned drivers on 64bit systems.
Two things:
You mention both x64 (also called x86-64, AMD64, or EMT64) and IA64 (Itanium). You understand they are two completely different architectures, right? Do you have an Itanium System? If not, you should not be compiling anything using the IA-64 build environment. It won't run on a standard PC (32 or 64).
Under 64-bit, the driver must digitally signed for production use. You will need to get an Authenticode certificate from Verisign or similar. For testing purposes, you can bypass the signature check by pressing F8 at boot time. You can also sign with a test certificate.
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/winlogo/drvsign/drvsign.mspx