[lkml]   [2008]   [Sep]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: linux-next: Tree for September 3

    On Thu, 4 Sep 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
    > ooh look, I fixed something:
    > --- a/drivers/pcmcia/cs.c~a
    > +++ a/drivers/pcmcia/cs.c
    > @@ -477,6 +477,8 @@ static int socket_setup(struct pcmcia_so
    > */
    > msleep(vcc_settle * 10);
    > + msleep(100);
    > +

    Heh. I'm hoping that it would help to just change vcc_settle to 50

    > skt->ops->get_status(skt, &status);
    > if (!(status & SS_POWERON)) {
    > cs_err(skt, "unable to apply power.\n");
    > _
    > we seem not to be giving that card enough settling time. Or is it
    > a characteristic of the controller?

    No, I think it's mainly the card.

    > It's a module option, but google(linux "unable to apply power") gets
    > 859 hits. Maybe the default is too short..

    I certainly don't think it would be wrong to change it to a longer
    timeout. Although I also suspect that we should in that case try to exit
    early too, ie change it to something like

    for (i = 0; i < vcc_settle; i++) {
    skt->ops->get_status(skt, &status);
    if (status & SS_POWERON)

    or similar. But if changing it to 50 fixes it for you, that's probably a
    good minimal change for now.

    > btw, do we really need to spew all this?
    > pccard: card ejected from slot 0
    > 3c59x 0000:07:00.0: restoring config space at offset 0xf (was 0xffffffff, writing 0x50a0115)
    > 3c59x 0000:07:00.0: restoring config space at offset 0xe (was 0xffffffff, writing 0x0)


    Although it's really a KERN_DEBUG(), so most people shouldn't even notice.
    I do wonder why somebody does pci_restore_state() when the card is

    Oh. It's literally drivers/net/3c59x.c: vortex_remove_one(). So it's not
    the PCI or Cardbus layer, it's the driver itself doing odd things. I don't
    think it's worth worrying about. It's trying to restore the state and
    disable the device that was unplugged and no longer exists ;)

    (Which can definitely be a useful thing if the remove_one is done because
    of some user-initiated driver removal. So I do understand why the driver
    has that code, it just doesn't make sense when the removal is due to the
    hardware itself going away).


     \ /
      Last update: 2008-09-04 11:07    [W:0.023 / U:14.852 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site