From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wolfgang Grandegger Subject: Re: Problem with so Loved interrupts Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 10:52:01 +0100 Message-ID: <4EBB9EC1.1040508@grandegger.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from ngcobalt02.manitu.net ([217.11.48.102]:55239 "EHLO ngcobalt02.manitu.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933773Ab1KJJwF (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Nov 2011 04:52:05 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-can-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Willy Lambert Cc: linux-can@vger.kernel.org On 11/10/2011 09:56 AM, Willy Lambert wrote: > 2011/11/9 Willy Lambert : >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Willy Lambert >> Date: 2011/11/9 >> Subject: Problem with so Loved interrupts >> To: linux-can >> >> >> Hi all, >> I am having interruption problems again. >> The symptom is a /proc/interrupt or /proc/xenomia/irq not rising. >> I am sure of my Hardware because I used an archive of a working linux >> system and it works. So the wired are Ok, device is responding, BIOS >> is well configured. >> I check this : http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.network.socketcan.user/813, >> and I am sure it is not the case since it worked with the old system >> and it has been electrically protected. >> I also recheck this >> http://old.nabble.com/Re%3A-Trying-to-use-socketCan-on-an-Ixxat-PC-I-04-104-p30752686.html >> but once again, everything is ok with old software. Please describe "old system" and "old software". >> So what did I changed ? I was updating many of my dependencies on my >> target and even tried 64b, so the road have been very long. What I >> accuse much is my new kernel. Before it was a 2.6.35.7, now it is a >> 2.6.38.8 with xenomai patches. I may have forgot to select a kernel >> option for interrupts... Well, you get other interrupts and therefore it seem to be specific to the CAN hardware and the bus/slot it is connected to. You say that it works with your 2.6.35.7 kernel but does not with 2.6.38.8 on the *identical* hardware, right? Then I would check the kernel configs for PNP related differences. Wolfgang.