Re: [bug] CONFIG_I2C_VIAPRO=y breaks skge

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 14:49:16 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org> wrote:
> > > Well my guess is that you have included an I2C chip driver with a weak 
> > > detection routine. More likely this is a typical case of "if it hurts, 
> > > don't do it". But maybe we can improve the help text or default, or even 
> > > disable probing for these devices.
> > > 
> > > At this point I am reasonably certain that the i2c-viapro driver is 
> > > innocent.
> > 
> > i've excluded the VIAPRO driver on that box (and only the VIAPRO driver - 
> > i.e. all those other I2C drivers still run frequently) - and the problem 
> > has not reoccured in about ~1000 bootups.
> > 
> > Combined with the fact that this box has a VIA chipset, does that not 
> > implicate the viapro driver, at least to a certain degree?
> 
> This VIA chipset is the bridge over which the bugs run. Blaming on it 
> for the problem you've hit would be similar to blaming the USB host 
> controller driver for a bug that is in the USB keyboard or mouse driver.
> 
> The "other I2C drivers" don't run frequently at all now that you've 
> disabled i2c-viapro. Without an I2C bus to probe on the machine, these 
> drivers don't do anything.

ah, okay - i see - what i thought to be a surgical workaround has cut off 
the whole leg. Will go back to find the ailing muscle instead.

> So, again, if you are still willing to help me solve the problem, please 
> boot the bad kernel and run:
> 
> $ ls -l /sys/bus/i2c/devices/*/driver
> 
> Then we'll know which drivers attached to I2C devices on your SMBus. 
> Figuring out which one shouldn't have will likely be straightforward.

will take some time - but i'll revisit it.

Could you give me a short list of I2C driver .config options i should 
disable one by one (instead of viapro) ?

	Ingo