# USB200M version 2.1



## zarsky99 (Jan 27, 2007)

I am waiting for my Linksys USB100TX to arrive from ebay. While I was waiting, I became impatient and decided to go out and buy a Linksys USB200M version 2.1 network adaptor, so I could finish BTUx9's upgrade to 6.2a.

So I used the serial port to get get the USB200M v2.1 up and running correctly. I verified it was working, by transferring over the 6.2a slices via ftp, and using telnet to run BTU's updateactive.tcl script. One interesting note....I could only get the tivo to recognize the USB200M v2.1 on the top most USB port for whatever reason. So everything so far is going well. I decided to reboot the tivo while keeping my serial connected to ensure the USB200M would come back to life after a reboot. It did. So next, I unplug the tivo go upstairs and hook everything back up to the TV. Everything comes back to life now, except for the USB200M. So it looks like that NIC does work, but tivo will not recognize it after a cold power cycle. And yes I did try removing it and re-connecting it to both USB ports. No dice. I thought I would share my analysis, to help track down the problem with the USB200M v2.1 adapter.

Just to be clear, I got the USB200M v2.1 working by running the network configuration scripts initially over the serial port with the adapter connected into the top most USB port. The tivo would continue to recognize it through warm reboots, but not cold power cycles. And oh yeah...I had issued the "rw" command prior to running the network script, so the settings should have been saved.

Anyone have an idea why this is so? It really is no big deal for me, because my USB100TX will be here soon, and I understand that one works with no problems.


----------



## BTUx9 (Nov 13, 2003)

Are you running backport drivers? They may initialize the device better than tivo's stock drivers.


----------



## zarsky99 (Jan 27, 2007)

BTU,

I am running the special drivers that the stock zipper installs for me. I believe those are the backport drivers. I basically installed everything that the zipper and enhancement script asked me about.

It gets even a little stranger. I have been playing around with it, plugging it in and out and on different ports. It seems to light the "Link" light about 75% of the time after completely booting first. However, I have only breifly seen the "10/100" and "Activity" lights illuminate a very few limited times. And even though the "Link" light is on the USB200M, my ethernet switch does not light up the port.

The thing that really bothers is me is that it worked fine the first time I ran the network script while connected over serial and even worked through warm resets. It just does not make sense to me that it worked beautifully then, and now it won't recognize and load drivers for it. That just makes no sense to me at all.

Is there a way to validate that I am running the backport drivers? I will do some searching for the answer, while I wait. Probably should have done that first ehh?


----------



## zarsky99 (Jan 27, 2007)

One problem with the Backport drivers I have (assuming they really are installed and activated)....is that when I ran the tweak.sh, I was not connected to the internet. Therefore I was stuck with the versions included in the latest Zipper (2.8). I think the tweak.sh script usually goes out to the internet and downloads the latest enhancements. Perhaps, I have the backport drivers installed, but they are not the latest version? And this might explain the unpredictability of the USB200M support?


----------



## BTUx9 (Nov 13, 2003)

the more you describe it, the more it sounds like hardware
I hope it's the adapter, rather than the USB port


----------



## zarsky99 (Jan 27, 2007)

BTUx9 said:


> the more you describe it, the more it sounds like hardware
> I hope it's the adapter, rather than the USB port


Yeah me too....I can always run out and get a replacement for the 200M tomorrow. And I should be getting my USB100TX in a couple of days.

I have been reading over some threads...and it seems like possibly the USB100TX is not compatible with the backport drivers. Is this true? If so, I will have a whole other set of issues.

I really really hope my USB ports are good. It would really suck if they were the problem. The thing is I was using the 200M quite well for at least an hour when I first got everything up and running via the serial port. I may bring it all back downstairs and hook over serial and see if I can diagnose the problem. I am wondering if it is just not remembering my network settings. Because like I said I performed numerous warm restarts without any problem. I will keep working the issue and report back any success/failures.


----------



## zarsky99 (Jan 27, 2007)

Yeah....so I tried putting the 200M on my regular Windows PC....and it is coming up all failures. I think the 200M is bad, not my tivo. Maybe I just had some bad luck....or maybe my tivo decided to fry it. I guess now, I just need to wait until I can get another USB nic to test.

UPDATE: I also decided to plug the 200M into my fedora box....it recognizes the HW, but will not activate it. I think it is pretty safe to assume the 200M is bad.


----------



## zarsky99 (Jan 27, 2007)

OK....now things get really weird....I tried plugging it in one more time....on the bottom USB connector this time....and it is working again. What the hell is going on here?

Is it possible my tivo is overloaded with all the hacks running, so sometimes when the USB adaptor gets plugged in there are enough CPU cycles to handle the event and sometimes not? I am out of ideas here...this makes very little sense to me.


----------



## BTUx9 (Nov 13, 2003)

could easily be a loose connection or any number of things... it all boils down to flaky hardware


----------



## zarsky99 (Jan 27, 2007)

BTUx9 said:


> could easily be a loose connection or any number of things... it all boils down to flaky hardware


Yeah....I think that's what it is....it is a relief to know my ports are good. My best guess is the 200M's short dongle cable, or the connector itself.


----------



## jporter12 (Mar 10, 2006)

That's an odd one! Have you tried it without the short cable? Or does the 2.1 version not have a regular USB port on it? Both the original version and the 2.0 version don't need the short cable, it's just there to relieve stress on the connections, namely the ethernet cable.


----------



## zarsky99 (Jan 27, 2007)

jp,

It exhibits the same behavior whether or not the cable is installed. That is why I believe it is the connector. It is either the tivo's connector or the 200M's connector. I am crossing my fingers and hoping it is the adapter, not the tivo.


----------



## zarsky99 (Jan 27, 2007)

Oh boy...I am really feeling stupid about now. Turns out it was the RJ-45 connector on my ethernet cable. I cut it off, and crimped a new one one.....and everything is cool now.


Moral of the story.... the USB200M version 2.1 seems to work fine on a DVR40 with 6.2a SW and Zipper 2.8 via the backport drivers. BTW....I bought it at RadioShack for $30....pretty good deal.


----------



## BTUx9 (Nov 13, 2003)

flakey hardware strikes again... glad you got it sorted in the end. Of all the pieces of hardware involved, the ethernet cable was probably the BEST one to have been faulty in that you don't have to spring for a new tivo or even a network adapter.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

zarsky99 said:


> One problem with the Backport drivers I have (assuming they really are installed and activated)....is that when I ran the tweak.sh, I was not connected to the internet. Therefore I was stuck with the versions included in the latest Zipper (2.8). I think the tweak.sh script usually goes out to the internet and downloads the latest enhancements. Perhaps, I have the backport drivers installed, but they are not the latest version? And this might explain the unpredictability of the USB200M support?


Tweak will go out and download the latest enhancement script, that does not necessarily mean the latest version of each hack that is initially installed. Case and point TWP loads 1.3.1 but the latest (I guess beta technically) is 2.0. But even the 1.3.1 I think is several builds old. The user is still required to update any software that may be out of date. Thats why you really shouldn't run tweak just because a new version comes out. If the new version fixes a problem you are having or adds a new feature sure, but just because I have run it for a few weeks, No.


----------



## jporter12 (Mar 10, 2006)

Oh, I've had that bad crimp on the ethernet cable problem before, myself! It ticks me off every time I let it run me around in circles. I've recently started checking cables that I made myself, FIRST, as I know I've had a couple turn out not quite right!

Glad to see you got it worked out!


----------

