From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759199Ab0FJN72 (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Jun 2010 09:59:28 -0400 Received: from mail.tpi.com ([70.99.223.143]:4404 "EHLO mail.tpi.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759036Ab0FJN71 (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Jun 2010 09:59:27 -0400 Message-ID: <4C10EFB6.3020500@canonical.com> Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 07:59:18 -0600 From: Tim Gardner Reply-To: tim.gardner@canonical.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100423 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jesse Brandeburg CC: e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: e1000e probe failure on 2.6.34 and higher, Intel MB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, http://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/591707 I've a bug where e1000e works with Lucid (2.6.32), but fails to probe with 2.6.35-rc2. The output is mighty terse. [ 28.193628] e1000e 0000:00:19.0: PCI INT A disabled [ 28.193740] e1000e: probe of 0000:00:19.0 failed with error -3 The full dmesg logs are at https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/591707/comments/23 and https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/591707/comments/24 The reporter says that it also fails with 2.6.34. The report has logs showing that it works with 2.6.32 and fails with 2.6.35-rc1. I've requested the reporter install a vanilla -rc2 kernel from http://kernel.ubuntu.com/~kernel-ppa/mainline/v2.6.35-rc2-maverick/linux-image-2.6.35-020635rc2-generic_2.6.35-020635rc2_amd64.deb, but I do not expect different results given that the only change from rc1 to rc2 is 'e1000e: change logical negate to bitwise' (which is not germane to probing). This appears to be an Intel OEM MB as far as I can tell from the DMI. It was new in April so is unlikely to have flash corruption issues such as those observed with 2.6.24. Any suggestions on why the probe silently fails? None of the module params look like they'll make a difference. rtg -- Tim Gardner tim.gardner@canonical.com