Jump to content

Marvell Support Effort


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
222 replies to this topic

#21
mortis

mortis

    InsanelyMac Geek

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
since I can't code I won't flame anyone, and I'd rather thank the few people who have taken the taks of porting drivers.

But it is most dissapointing that after some 4 months of OsX this community has achieved very little in terms of porting to everyone.

We have been more succesful in cracking and hacking installs of OsX (a somewhat illegal activity) than acctually expanding the hardware base (a totally legal activity through opensource!)

Thus, OsX will still be a limited Os for few people

Please people, keep on trying!

#22
autoy

autoy

    InsanelyMac Sage

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 302 posts
Ok, I got reply from Syskonnect.

The good news is they will definitely support x86 platform. The bad news is that porting resources are not sheduled yet, so it's not going to be inmediate. Maybe the release of x86 machines on January will put them under some pressure.

Stay tuned, it ain't over yet...

#23
eightballbill

eightballbill

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 88 posts
Mortis you are right, but it is also true that the people who could really help us porting x86 application/drivers etc. and have experience (like Maxxuss or cremes for example) don't help us. I'm not saying that they are expected to, since is not their job, but they could do in 1 day much more than what we could do in 2 weeks. Is there a way to contact people them and ask them to give us a hand?

#24
aitikin

aitikin

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 73 posts
Mortis, I agree, I believe that everyone here is starting to agree with you. I'm not trying to bitch about it, but I believe that it is sad that we've had projects devoted to Marvell and nVidia and everything and the fruits of the labor (in the nVidia case) are barely worth it. We all know there will eventually be nVidia drivers, it'll just be a matter of time, I understand that, but I still believe it would be great if we had it working. The most likely situation for it to be successful is if we were to get a lot more people working on it. Of course I, like yourself, don't know how to code drivers, so I can't exactly help.

#25
altaic

altaic

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 14 posts
It takes a great deal of effort to write drivers for hardware who's manufacturer is uncooperative. Not just time, but effort. Even for experienced people, it's difficult.

#26
mortis

mortis

    InsanelyMac Geek

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts

It takes a great deal of effort to write drivers for hardware who's manufacturer is uncooperative. Not just time, but effort. Even for experienced people, it's difficult.



Well Altaic:

I think I speak in everyone's name when I say I am very thankful fo your efforts. I know its hard to por drivers.
I'm not critizicing you or anyone else in special. It`s just that I feel that the aim of the community should be shifted right now towards drivers......
there are lots of unsupported hardware wih may be feasable to port and support.
As long as Apple doesn't set out their final version of OsX86, we are jus beta-testing their security systems!
on the other hand, open source drivers can remain for any version.

For most of us, running 10.4.1 or 10.4.3 (any of the 2 availabe versions) doesn't make any difference. It has only had "some" impact on ATI users. But it has been a major focus on these groups. Should we (the community) loose time and publish results on how to crack OsX install methosd??
Wouldnt it be better if only Maxxus ( who's the responsible for most of the advances) works in silence and only releases the "final" hack when OSX86 is officially out????

I think we've only taught Apple how to improve security measures while in the meantime, done nothing to expand the Os base for the rest.

#27
altaic

altaic

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 14 posts
Whatever apple does to combat pirating or use on other hardware, it'll be cracked. Of that I'm certain, and I am sure they are too.

As to where efforts should be diverted, it seems there is a very small portion of the community capable of writing drivers. I would say, with the exception of Maxxus, everyone who is capable and willing is writing drivers. I mean, we're not seeing multiple TPM cracks or anything.

Also, it's somewhat improper to call what they're doing "security," since that implies that the installed OS is insecure to hackers, which it's not. I wish people would refrain from saying things like, "New OSX security broken again." It's misleading, and is bad for apple's reputation. They value their reputation greatly, and it's just begging the corporation to stomp on all of these projects. It sucks for everyone involved.

#28
aitikin

aitikin

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 73 posts

Also, it's somewhat improper to call what they're doing "security," since that implies that the installed OS is insecure to hackers, which it's not. I wish people would refrain from saying things like, "New OSX security broken again." It's misleading, and is bad for apple's reputation. They value their reputation greatly, and it's just begging the corporation to stomp on all of these projects. It sucks for everyone involved.


That's a very good point. I would hate to see people targeted just because Apple's reputation is in jeopardy. If people are going to get sued, it better be over their ingenious methods of getting around things like TPM chips. They really do pride themselves on their reputation, and they do have a right to (9 times out of 10).

I also agree that we are basically beta-testing their TPM system though. As long as we keep going with it, they'll keep improving it. As they showed us with 10.4.1 to 10.4.2 they can improve it even after the intial release. I doubt that the official release of Macintels will be the final word in TPM or whatever they end up using as a protection system.

#29
eightballbill

eightballbill

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 88 posts
Is there a possibility to have sk98 drivers before syskonnect releases his own drivers?

#30
eightballbill

eightballbill

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 88 posts
Knock, knock; is anybody there?

#31
altaic

altaic

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 14 posts
I honestly don't have a timeframe for you all. Neither manufacturer responded to my inquiries. With a doc explaining the various registers, this would be a *ton* easier. It seems like the more I work on this, the more I realize that there's much more to be done. It'll be quite some time. If anyone who has experience writing drivers would like to join me, pm me.

Edited by altaic, 14 January 2006 - 08:35 AM.


#32
myzar

myzar

    InsanelyMac Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 718 posts
maybe there's hope for us

this is the output of kextstat on 10.4.4 that someone posted in another thread

http://appleintelfaq...c/kextstat.html

39 0 0x1fec9000 0x39000 0x38000 com.apple.iokit.AppleYukon (1.0.0d30) <38 16 11 2>

#33
autoy

autoy

    InsanelyMac Sage

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 302 posts
:jerry: :gathering: :laser: :censored2: :D

#34
altaic

altaic

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 14 posts
Huh. That would make things easier. Has the TPM for 10.4.4 been cracked yet?

#35
jegabla

jegabla

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 59 posts
Nope, not yet and might take a while still, there are some things that need to be fixed besides TPM like the EFI boot and that don't_steal_osx kext may imply some kind of protection too.

#36
eightballbill

eightballbill

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 88 posts
we could get the update package for x86 and open it with pacifist to get the kext inside of it.

#37
brokenlink

brokenlink

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Just Joined
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
The AppleYukon driver in 10.4.4 claims to be compatible with Marvell Yukon2 88E8053 PCI-Express chips, ID 0x11AB/0x4362. Some newer motherboards apparently use this chip for integrated LAN.

This chip is apparently newer and quite a bit different from the 3C2000 / 3C940 / Yukon / 88E8001, which have ID 0x11AB/0x4320. The older chip seems much more common than Yukon2 and is probably what most people reading this thread seek support for.

I tried installing only the AppleYukon plugin from the 10.4.4 OS into 8F1111. Is this approach fatally flawed? I haven't read around enough to understand, but kextload didn't seem to complain. Anyway, I did this on a machine with a Yukon1, and the driver loaded but didn't recognize the NIC. Tweaking Info.plist, this problem is solved -- the driver creates an enX device, correctly determines the MAC, and manages to send out a DHCP request. Unfortunately it seems to fail to receive DHCP replies and causes the system to crash shortly after being enabled.

Indeed SysKonnect maintains one of the Linux drivers for this series of chips, and apparently shoved support for both Yukon and Yukon2 into that same sk98lin driver. There is some criticism of this approach on the linux-kernel mailing list, suggesting that perhaps those chips are too different to be comfortably supported by the same device driver, and a driver written for one won't accidentially support the other.

#38
melvin

melvin

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 10 posts
brokenlink: I have the AppleYukon driver working perfectly on my 8F1111 system as we speak. I simply replaced the IONetworkingFamily and IOPCIFamily kexts on my system, and deleted all the unnecessary plug-ins. Because my board is the D915GEV (88E8050), I had to change the PCI match ID to 0x436111AB.

#39
autoy

autoy

    InsanelyMac Sage

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 302 posts
That's great news Melvin :D I hope you can post a howto soon.

#40
myzar

myzar

    InsanelyMac Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 718 posts
It half works on the nforce3 marvel yukon, the card is detected and works but ppoe is screwed . It hangs solid the whole os if i try to connect to the inet with my ethernet ppoe modem

the device id for the nforce3 marvel yukon is 0x432011AB





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

© 2014 InsanelyMac  |   News  |   Forum  |   Downloads  |   OSx86 Wiki  |   Mac Netbook  |   PHP hosting by CatN  |   Designed by Ed Gain  |   Logo by irfan  |   Privacy Policy