From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751256AbWGLQ4y (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Jul 2006 12:56:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751271AbWGLQ4x (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Jul 2006 12:56:53 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:4546 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751256AbWGLQ4w (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Jul 2006 12:56:52 -0400 Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 12:56:48 -0400 From: Dave Jones To: Alan Stern Cc: Kernel development list , David Brownell Subject: Re: annoying frequent overcurrent messages. Message-ID: <20060712165648.GA14453@redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: Dave Jones , Alan Stern , Kernel development list , David Brownell References: <200607111747.13529.david-b@pacbell.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 10:19:39AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > Dave Jones wrote: > > > I have a box that's having its dmesg flooded with.. > > > > hub 1-0:1.0: over-current change on port 1 > > hub 1-0:1.0: over-current change on port 2 > > hub 1-0:1.0: over-current change on port 1 > > hub 1-0:1.0: over-current change on port 2 > ... > > > over and over again.. > > The thing is, this box doesn't even have any USB devices connected to it, > > so there's absolutely nothing I can do to remedy this. > > Well, overcurrent is a potentially dangerous situation. That's why it > gets reported with dev_err priority. > > Evidently it's a hardware fault. Perhaps the overcurrent-detect input > lines are floating and constantly triggering as a result. It's not even > clear that attaching a USB device would make the problem go away. > > Since you're not using the UHCI controller on that computer, you could > simply rmmod uhci-hcd (or modify /etc/modprobe.conf to prevent it from > being loaded in the first place). That would stop the constant interrupts > and the syslog spamming. > > But as for fixing the underlying hardware problem, I don't think there's > anything we can do. we could at least rate-limit the messages. Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk