Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751298AbWANVpg (ORCPT ); Sat, 14 Jan 2006 16:45:36 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751302AbWANVpf (ORCPT ); Sat, 14 Jan 2006 16:45:35 -0500 Received: from flock1.newmail.ru ([212.48.140.157]:20101 "HELO flock1.newmail.ru") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751298AbWANVpe (ORCPT ); Sat, 14 Jan 2006 16:45:34 -0500 From: Andrey Borzenkov To: Jean Delvare Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] 2.6.15: lm90 0-004c: Register 0x13 read failed (-1) Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 00:45:25 +0300 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 Cc: lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <200601142223.35838.arvidjaar@newmail.ru> <20060114222032.1c2ff252.khali@linux-fr.org> In-Reply-To: <20060114222032.1c2ff252.khali@linux-fr.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200601150045.30942.arvidjaar@newmail.ru> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3584 Lines: 92 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sunday 15 January 2006 00:20, Jean Delvare wrote: > Hi Andrey, > > > Vanilla 2.6.15 on Toshiba Portege 4000. I get constant messages in dmesg: > > > > i2c_adapter i2c-0: Error: command never completed > > lm90 0-004c: Register 0x1 read failed (-1) > > i2c_adapter i2c-0: Error: command never completed > > lm90 0-004c: Register 0x14 read failed (-1) > > i2c_adapter i2c-0: Error: command never completed > > lm90 0-004c: Register 0x8 read failed (-1) > > i2c_adapter i2c-0: Error: command never completed > > lm90 0-004c: Register 0x0 read failed (-1) > > > > for quite a number of registers. Apparently I can read sensors just fine > > still I am uneasy seeing those. > > Before 2.6.15, the lm90 driver did not handle read errors in any way, > so they were probably already there, you simply were not aware of it. > However, I guess that you already had the "command never completed" > errors? These come from the i2c-ali1535 bus driver. > Before 2.6.15 I run Mandriva kernel 2.6.12-12mdk. I do not remember them but may be I just never actually looked in dmesg :) > It would be possible to add a retry-on-failure mechanism in the lm90 > driver. However, the real problem is more likely in the i2c-ali1535 > driver so fixing this one driver would be preferable. > > > eeprom-i2c-0-50 > > Adapter: SMBus ALI1535 adapter at ef00 > > Memory type: SDR SDRAM DIMM > > Memory size (MB): 256 > > > > adm1032-i2c-0-4c > > Adapter: SMBus ALI1535 adapter at ef00 > > M/B Temp: +43?C (low = -65?C, high = +127?C) > > CPU Temp: +47.6?C (low = +43.0?C, high = +51.0?C) ALARM > > M/B Crit: +127?C (hyst = +122?C) > > CPU Crit: +100?C (hyst = +95?C) > > Do you also have "command never completed" errors without an associated > error from the lm90 driver? yes, on boot. > This would suggest that the eeprom driver > too is triggering errors, which in turn would confirm that we need to > fix the i2c-ali1535 driver rather than adding a workaround to the lm90 > driver. > > It looks like the i2c-ali1535 driver as it exists in the lm_sensors CVS > repository (for Linux 2.4 kernels) did receive a major change in March > 2005. These changes were supposed to "fix stability problems" (by > adding delay loops pretty much everywhere). They were never ported to > the Linux 2.6 version of the driver. Maybe we should try doing so now. > > This is a 400 lines patch, porting it won't be trivial, I am not > familiar with this driver myself and I don't have a chip to test my > changes on, so if someone else wants to take his/her chance, go. If > not, I'll do it. > > Andrey, will you be able to test a i2c-ali1535 patch if we come up with > one? Yes. Send me a patch (or give a link) and I'll try what I can do to port it. I ask if I have a question :) BTW that reminds me - I actually have two 256M modules. Sensors show just one. Both are from Toshiba so it is unlikely that one does not have SPD - any idea why eeprom does not find second one? Oh, and it was the same when I had two 128M modules so it is unlikely caused by modules. thank you for reply - -andrey -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDyXD6R6LMutpd94wRAsIqAJwP5CdEisSKsA/iGqv2ouZ58xLe8ACgvRIY WfuwZrsE996ZEtSoYvElgnQ= =SSCR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/