Ubuntu 10.10 Beta: WIFI firmware not loading Sony Vaio VPCF136FM

[Michael E. Adams]

Binary package hint: linux-firmware

I am totally confused by the volume of reports I have read about this particular WIFI firmware problem. So I am reporting my problem here.

I have using 10.10 beta on my new Sony Vaio VPCF136FM configured as follows:

Processor: i7-740QM / 1.73 GHz
Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce GT 425M GPU
WIFI: Intel(R) Centrino(R) Advanced-N + WiMAX 6250 AGN
Display: 16.4" / 1600 x 900
Memory: 6 GB

The driver is being loaded, I can make un-encrypted connections to my wireless router. I am not able to make encrypted WIFI connections to my wireless router because the driver firmware is not loading (I get a boot-up error message stating that no suitable firmware was found). However, the firmware module is present in /lib/firmware (although the execute file permission is set - not good - I removed it). I poked around the kernel configuration file and see what appear to be firmware flags informing the kernel of other firmware versions, but not one for the firmware for this card (firmware is also available from Intel in iwlwifi-6050-ucode-9.201.4.1.tgz).

I don't know how to append an apport-collect to this until a bug report number is issued. I have read in other reports that there seemed to be an interaction between an NVIDIA driver and the loading of WIFI firmware. I have already reported a bug against 10.10 beta for NVIDIA driver problems on my system (bug confirmed). Please see bug report #655078. This bug report already provided a complete apport-collect report for my system. Maybe there is an interaction that can be determined in my system reports.
---
Architecture: i386
Dependencies:

DistroRelease: Ubuntu 10.10
EcryptfsInUse: Yes
InstallationMedia: Ubuntu 10.10 "Maverick Meerkat" - Beta i386 (20100901.1)
NonfreeKernelModules: nvidia
Package: linux-firmware 1.38
PackageArchitecture: all
ProcEnviron:
 LANG=en_US.utf8
 SHELL=/bin/bash
ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 2.6.35-22.33-generic-pae 2.6.35.4
Tags: maverick
Uname: Linux 2.6.35-22-generic-pae i686
UserGroups: adm admin cdrom dialout lpadmin plugdev sambashare

---
Architecture: i386
Dependencies:

DistroRelease: Ubuntu 10.10
EcryptfsInUse: Yes
InstallationMedia: Ubuntu 10.10 "Maverick Meerkat" - Beta i386 (20100901.1)
NonfreeKernelModules: nvidia
Package: linux-firmware 1.38
PackageArchitecture: all
ProcEnviron:
 PATH=(custom, no user)
 LANG=en_US.utf8
 SHELL=/bin/bash
ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 2.6.35-22.33-generic-pae 2.6.35.4
Tags: maverick
Uname: Linux 2.6.35-22-generic-pae i686
UserGroups:

[Michael E. Adams (meadams)]

Could someone please tell me if I reported this bug in the correct place and if not, where it should be reported? I realise folks are busy getting 10.10 released. But, I am concerned that of the list of folks this report was sent to, nobody has acknowledged that they know it exists.

Thank you.

[Michael E. Adams (meadams)]

Well, I got the first part of my bug report correct. I was totally confused! I will document my error for others to benefit from (and at least get a good laugh).

This is my first hearing of something called WiMAX. The WiMAX address was the only number on the bottom of my computer that resembled a MAC address - which IT IS NOT. I have MAC address filtering set up on my router and mistakenly configured it with my WiMAX address. Since I did not want to reconfigure my router to perform my unencrypted connection test, I used my neighbor's unencrypted router to test against (which worked). It wasn't until I did "ifconfig" that I discovered what the real MAC (HWaddr) address for my machine was. I entered this HWaddr in my router's MAC address filter and am happy to report that WIFI on my Sony Vaio VPCF136FM is fully operational under Ubuntu 10.10. My system uses the Intel Corporation Centrino Advanced-N + WiMAX 6250 (rev 5f) network controller.

Sorry for the confusion.

Mike

[Chase Douglas (chasedouglas)]

It sounds like this was just a configuration issue, so I'm marking the bug as Invalid.

Please reopen if I misunderstood.

[Michael E. Adams (meadams)]

Chase,

Yes, my configuration mistake makes my wireless problem invalid. I was verbose to prevent others from making the same mistake. However, I don't know why Ubuntu is reporting that no suitable firmware is available to load during bootup. Also, the subject firmware in /lib/firmware does have the executable permissions set (the only module that does), which really should be removed.

Mike