FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian Kernel

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 09-23-2010, 10:36 AM
Mike Hommey
 
Default Bug#597820: linux-image-2.6.32-5-amd64: 2.6.32 doesn't support the f71889fg sensor chip

Package: linux-2.6
Version: 2.6.32-23
Severity: wishlist
Tags: squeeze

I installed a fresh squeeze on a new PC with a MSI P55M-GD45 motherboard
that uses a f71889fg sensor chip. Unfortunately, while lm-sensors'
sensor-detect is able to find the chip and suggest a kernel module, the
module doesn't load because it lacks support for the chip.

The support was added somewhen between 2.6.32 and 2.6.33, and was added
by commit 7669896f. I hear that you add support for hardware when the
backport is simple, this one is pretty trivial.

For other reasons, I already switched to 2.6.35 on that machine, so it's
not a problem for me anymore, but the motherboard is already quite old, so
other people may have similar problems with a fresh squeeze.

Cheers,

Mike



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20100923103604.24446.69703.reportbug@jigen.glandiu m.org">http://lists.debian.org/20100923103604.24446.69703.reportbug@jigen.glandiu m.org
 
Old 09-28-2010, 08:36 AM
Mike Hommey
 
Default Bug#597820: linux-image-2.6.32-5-amd64: 2.6.32 doesn't support the f71889fg sensor chip

On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 12:36:04PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> Package: linux-2.6
> Version: 2.6.32-23
> Severity: wishlist
> Tags: squeeze
>
> I installed a fresh squeeze on a new PC with a MSI P55M-GD45 motherboard
> that uses a f71889fg sensor chip. Unfortunately, while lm-sensors'
> sensor-detect is able to find the chip and suggest a kernel module, the
> module doesn't load because it lacks support for the chip.
>
> The support was added somewhen between 2.6.32 and 2.6.33, and was added
> by commit 7669896f. I hear that you add support for hardware when the
> backport is simple, this one is pretty trivial.
>
> For other reasons, I already switched to 2.6.35 on that machine, so it's
> not a problem for me anymore, but the motherboard is already quite old, so
> other people may have similar problems with a fresh squeeze.

I would also be interested in the watchdog support for the same chip,
coming in 96cb4eb019ce3185ec0d946a74b5a2202f5067c9. AFAICT, it requires
8b6d043b7ee2d1b819dc833d677ea2aead71a0c0 and possibly
729d273aa7c86eb1406ade4eadf249cff188bf9a. I'm not sure how intrusive
these could be considered.

Mike



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20100928083618.GA23570@glandium.org">http://lists.debian.org/20100928083618.GA23570@glandium.org
 
Old 10-02-2010, 07:42 PM
Ben Hutchings
 
Default Bug#597820: linux-image-2.6.32-5-amd64: 2.6.32 doesn't support the f71889fg sensor chip

On Tue, 2010-09-28 at 10:36 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 12:36:04PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > Package: linux-2.6
> > Version: 2.6.32-23
> > Severity: wishlist
> > Tags: squeeze
> >
> > I installed a fresh squeeze on a new PC with a MSI P55M-GD45 motherboard
> > that uses a f71889fg sensor chip. Unfortunately, while lm-sensors'
> > sensor-detect is able to find the chip and suggest a kernel module, the
> > module doesn't load because it lacks support for the chip.
> >
> > The support was added somewhen between 2.6.32 and 2.6.33, and was added
> > by commit 7669896f. I hear that you add support for hardware when the
> > backport is simple, this one is pretty trivial.
> >
> > For other reasons, I already switched to 2.6.35 on that machine, so it's
> > not a problem for me anymore, but the motherboard is already quite old, so
> > other people may have similar problems with a fresh squeeze.
>
> I would also be interested in the watchdog support for the same chip,
> coming in 96cb4eb019ce3185ec0d946a74b5a2202f5067c9. AFAICT, it requires
> 8b6d043b7ee2d1b819dc833d677ea2aead71a0c0 and possibly
> 729d273aa7c86eb1406ade4eadf249cff188bf9a. I'm not sure how intrusive
> these could be considered.

They seem a bit intrusive but probably safe.

However, the last patch (729d273aa7c86eb1406ade4eadf249cff188bf9a)
doesn't look right; surely it should be using the new
request_muxed_region() macro too?

Ben.

--
Ben Hutchings
Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.
 
Old 10-02-2010, 11:14 PM
Giel van Schijndel
 
Default Bug#597820: linux-image-2.6.32-5-amd64: 2.6.32 doesn't support the f71889fg sensor chip

On Sat, Oct 02, 2010 at 08:42:19PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-09-28 at 10:36 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 12:36:04PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
>>> Package: linux-2.6
>>> Version: 2.6.32-23
>>> Severity: wishlist
>>> Tags: squeeze
>>>
>>> I installed a fresh squeeze on a new PC with a MSI P55M-GD45 motherboard
>>> that uses a f71889fg sensor chip. Unfortunately, while lm-sensors'
>>> sensor-detect is able to find the chip and suggest a kernel module, the
>>> module doesn't load because it lacks support for the chip.
>>>
>>> The support was added somewhen between 2.6.32 and 2.6.33, and was added
>>> by commit 7669896f. I hear that you add support for hardware when the
>>> backport is simple, this one is pretty trivial.
>>>
>>> For other reasons, I already switched to 2.6.35 on that machine, so it's
>>> not a problem for me anymore, but the motherboard is already quite old, so
>>> other people may have similar problems with a fresh squeeze.
>>
>> I would also be interested in the watchdog support for the same chip,

That patch does *not* add watchdog support for the Fintek F71889FG chip,
it *only* adds support for the F71808E and the F71882FG. Additionally a
patch for the F71862FG is currently pending review and inclusion.

That being said, this driver should be fairly easy to expand to include
support for the F71889FG chip (AFAIK only pin-configuration should be
added, which probably is just a datasheet-reading exercise). Adding
support however would be something I'd suggest doing across the LKML
*first*, then (optionally) backport it later.

>> coming in 96cb4eb019ce3185ec0d946a74b5a2202f5067c9. AFAICT, it requires
>> 8b6d043b7ee2d1b819dc833d677ea2aead71a0c0 and possibly
>> 729d273aa7c86eb1406ade4eadf249cff188bf9a. I'm not sure how intrusive
>> these could be considered.
>
> They seem a bit intrusive but probably safe.

I would consider 729d273 to be safe. 8b6d043 is a bit more complex,
though it should only affect I/O resources acquired with the newly
introduced flag IORESOURCE_MUXED, it thus shouldn't affect pre-existing
code.

> However, the last patch (729d273aa7c86eb1406ade4eadf249cff188bf9a)
> doesn't look right; surely it should be using the new
> request_muxed_region() macro too?

IIRC that patch was submitted and applied *before* 8b6d043, hence
request_muxed_region() wasn't available and thus not used.

The patch to make use of request_muxed_region() [1] has been acked [2]
but not yet applied yet, I've just sent out a poke-mail (CC-ed to this
bug) with the request for it to be committed.

[1] <1280669455-31283-1-git-send-email-me@mortis.eu>
[2] <4C59514A.7090401@redhat.com>


--
Met vriendelijke groet,
With kind regards,
Giel van Schijndel
--
"Nine people can't make a baby in a month."
-- Fred Brooks
 
Old 10-02-2010, 11:33 PM
Giel van Schijndel
 
Default Bug#597820: linux-image-2.6.32-5-amd64: 2.6.32 doesn't support the f71889fg sensor chip

On Sun, Oct 03, 2010 at 01:14:24AM +0200, Giel van Schijndel wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 02, 2010 at 08:42:19PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>> On Tue, 2010-09-28 at 10:36 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
>>> I would also be interested in the watchdog support for the same chip,
>
> That patch does *not* add watchdog support for the Fintek F71889FG chip,
> it *only* adds support for the F71808E and the F71882FG. Additionally a
> patch for the F71862FG is currently pending review and inclusion.
>
> That being said, this driver should be fairly easy to expand to include
> support for the F71889FG chip (AFAIK only pin-configuration should be
> added, which probably is just a datasheet-reading exercise). Adding
> support however would be something I'd suggest doing across the LKML
> *first*, then (optionally) backport it later.

Heck I gave it a try and attached you'll find a patch to add F71889FG
support to the current f71808e_wdt watchdog driver. The reason I
haven't send this to the LKML before however, is that I don't have any
system with that chip to test it, so please do test it and tell me the
results.

--
Met vriendelijke groet,
With kind regards,
Giel van Schijndel
--
"It would seem that perfection is attained not when no more can be
added, but when no more can be removed."
-- Antoine de Saint Exupéry
 
Old 10-03-2010, 07:14 AM
Mike Hommey
 
Default Bug#597820: linux-image-2.6.32-5-amd64: 2.6.32 doesn't support the f71889fg sensor chip

On Sun, Oct 03, 2010 at 01:14:24AM +0200, Giel van Schijndel wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 02, 2010 at 08:42:19PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-09-28 at 10:36 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> >> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 12:36:04PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> >>> Package: linux-2.6
> >>> Version: 2.6.32-23
> >>> Severity: wishlist
> >>> Tags: squeeze
> >>>
> >>> I installed a fresh squeeze on a new PC with a MSI P55M-GD45 motherboard
> >>> that uses a f71889fg sensor chip. Unfortunately, while lm-sensors'
> >>> sensor-detect is able to find the chip and suggest a kernel module, the
> >>> module doesn't load because it lacks support for the chip.
> >>>
> >>> The support was added somewhen between 2.6.32 and 2.6.33, and was added
> >>> by commit 7669896f. I hear that you add support for hardware when the
> >>> backport is simple, this one is pretty trivial.
> >>>
> >>> For other reasons, I already switched to 2.6.35 on that machine, so it's
> >>> not a problem for me anymore, but the motherboard is already quite old, so
> >>> other people may have similar problems with a fresh squeeze.
> >>
> >> I would also be interested in the watchdog support for the same chip,
>
> That patch does *not* add watchdog support for the Fintek F71889FG chip,
> it *only* adds support for the F71808E and the F71882FG.

Oops.

> Additionally a
> patch for the F71862FG is currently pending review and inclusion.
>
> That being said, this driver should be fairly easy to expand to include
> support for the F71889FG chip (AFAIK only pin-configuration should be
> added, which probably is just a datasheet-reading exercise). Adding
> support however would be something I'd suggest doing across the LKML
> *first*, then (optionally) backport it later.
>
> >> coming in 96cb4eb019ce3185ec0d946a74b5a2202f5067c9. AFAICT, it requires
> >> 8b6d043b7ee2d1b819dc833d677ea2aead71a0c0 and possibly
> >> 729d273aa7c86eb1406ade4eadf249cff188bf9a. I'm not sure how intrusive
> >> these could be considered.
> >
> > They seem a bit intrusive but probably safe.
>
> I would consider 729d273 to be safe. 8b6d043 is a bit more complex,
> though it should only affect I/O resources acquired with the newly
> introduced flag IORESOURCE_MUXED, it thus shouldn't affect pre-existing
> code.
>
> > However, the last patch (729d273aa7c86eb1406ade4eadf249cff188bf9a)
> > doesn't look right; surely it should be using the new
> > request_muxed_region() macro too?
>
> IIRC that patch was submitted and applied *before* 8b6d043, hence
> request_muxed_region() wasn't available and thus not used.
>
> The patch to make use of request_muxed_region() [1] has been acked [2]
> but not yet applied yet, I've just sent out a poke-mail (CC-ed to this
> bug) with the request for it to be committed.
>
> [1] <1280669455-31283-1-git-send-email-me@mortis.eu>

AFAICS, this id refers to the patch that ended in
96cb4eb019ce3185ec0d946a74b5a2202f5067c9.

The one you are referring to must be
http://marc.info/?l=lm-sensors&m=127219192018988&w=2

I will give a try to your patch for the F71889FG watchdog, thanks.

Mike



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20101003071444.GA4334@glandium.org">http://lists.debian.org/20101003071444.GA4334@glandium.org
 
Old 10-03-2010, 09:21 AM
Mike Hommey
 
Default Bug#597820: linux-image-2.6.32-5-amd64: 2.6.32 doesn't support the f71889fg sensor chip

On Sun, Oct 03, 2010 at 01:33:23AM +0200, Giel van Schijndel wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 03, 2010 at 01:14:24AM +0200, Giel van Schijndel wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 02, 2010 at 08:42:19PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2010-09-28 at 10:36 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> >>> I would also be interested in the watchdog support for the same chip,
> >
> > That patch does *not* add watchdog support for the Fintek F71889FG chip,
> > it *only* adds support for the F71808E and the F71882FG. Additionally a
> > patch for the F71862FG is currently pending review and inclusion.
> >
> > That being said, this driver should be fairly easy to expand to include
> > support for the F71889FG chip (AFAIK only pin-configuration should be
> > added, which probably is just a datasheet-reading exercise). Adding
> > support however would be something I'd suggest doing across the LKML
> > *first*, then (optionally) backport it later.
>
> Heck I gave it a try and attached you'll find a patch to add F71889FG
> support to the current f71808e_wdt watchdog driver. The reason I
> haven't send this to the LKML before however, is that I don't have any
> system with that chip to test it, so please do test it and tell me the
> results.

I gave a try to your patch, on top of the other ones.

For the kernel team, please note that some of the patches don't apply
cleanly on 2.6.32, because of some changes in context (mostly coding-style
changes) that apparently happened between 2.6.32 and the various patches
landing. I manually edited the patches to make them apply properly, please
ping me if you want the modified versions. The configs also need to be
modified to include CONFIG_F71808E_WDT=m.

Still for the kernel team, applying the release_mutex_region patch
makes the ABI check script barf with the following changes:
__devm_release_region module: vmlinux,
version: 0x969a2a91 -> 0x70191467, export: EXPORT_SYMBOL
__devm_request_region module: vmlinux,
version: 0x51144912 -> 0x9e7acb57, export: EXPORT_SYMBOL

For Giel, it appears the watchdog driver doesn't entirely work:
It loads fine:
f71808e_wdt: Found f71889fg watchdog chip, revision 21
But watchdog-test (as from Documentation/watchdog/src/watchdog-test.c)
doesn't work and outputs:
Watchdog device not enabled.
stracing it shows this:
open("/dev/watchdog", O_WRONLY) = -1 ENODEV (No such
device)

Please tell me if you need more feedback.

Thanks,

Mike



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20101003092142.GA6013@glandium.org">http://lists.debian.org/20101003092142.GA6013@glandium.org
 
Old 10-03-2010, 12:02 PM
Giel van Schijndel
 
Default Bug#597820: linux-image-2.6.32-5-amd64: 2.6.32 doesn't support the f71889fg sensor chip

On Sun, Oct 03, 2010 at 09:14:44AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 03, 2010 at 01:14:24AM +0200, Giel van Schijndel wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 02, 2010 at 08:42:19PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2010-09-28 at 10:36 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
>>>> I would also be interested in the watchdog support for the same
>>>> chip,
>>
>> That patch does *not* add watchdog support for the Fintek F71889FG
>> chip, it *only* adds support for the F71808E and the F71882FG.
>
> Oops.
>
>> Additionally a patch for the F71862FG is currently pending review and
>> inclusion.
>>
>> That being said, this driver should be fairly easy to expand to
>> include support for the F71889FG chip (AFAIK only pin-configuration
>> should be added, which probably is just a datasheet-reading
>> exercise). Adding support however would be something I'd suggest
>> doing across the LKML *first*, then (optionally) backport it later.
>>
>>> However, the last patch (729d273aa7c86eb1406ade4eadf249cff188bf9a)
>>> doesn't look right; surely it should be using the new
>>> request_muxed_region() macro too?
>>
>> IIRC that patch was submitted and applied *before* 8b6d043, hence
>> request_muxed_region() wasn't available and thus not used.
>>
>> The patch to make use of request_muxed_region() [1] has been acked [2]
>> but not yet applied yet, I've just sent out a poke-mail (CC-ed to this
>> bug) with the request for it to be committed.
>>
>> [1] <1280669455-31283-1-git-send-email-me@mortis.eu>
>
> AFAICS, this id refers to the patch that ended in
> 96cb4eb019ce3185ec0d946a74b5a2202f5067c9.

I can't find that commit in Torvald's tree. Who's the author and what's
the first line of the commit message?

> The one you are referring to must be
> http://marc.info/?l=lm-sensors&m=127219192018988&w=2

Actually I'm referring to this patch (updated/rebased version of the one
you're referring to):
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=128066949410960&w=2

PS marc.info allows direct searching on Message-ID like so:
http://marc.info/?i=$message_id
e.g.:
http://marc.info/?i=1280669455-31283-1-git-send-email-me@mortis.eu

--
Met vriendelijke groet,
With kind regards,
Giel van Schijndel
--
"The required techniques of effective reasoning are pretty formal, but
as long as programming is done by people that don't master them, the
software crisis will remain with us and will be considered an incurable
disease. And you know what incurable diseases do: they invite the quacks
and charlatans in, who in this case take the form of Software
Engineering gurus."
-- Edsger Dijkstra
 
Old 10-03-2010, 12:47 PM
Giel van Schijndel
 
Default Bug#597820: linux-image-2.6.32-5-amd64: 2.6.32 doesn't support the f71889fg sensor chip

On Sun, Oct 03, 2010 at 11:21:42AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 03, 2010 at 01:33:23AM +0200, Giel van Schijndel wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 03, 2010 at 01:14:24AM +0200, Giel van Schijndel wrote:
>>> On Sat, Oct 02, 2010 at 08:42:19PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 2010-09-28 at 10:36 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
>>>>> I would also be interested in the watchdog support for the same
>>>>> chip,
>>>
>>> That patch does *not* add watchdog support for the Fintek F71889FG
>>> chip, it *only* adds support for the F71808E and the F71882FG.
>>> Additionally a patch for the F71862FG is currently pending review
>>> and inclusion.
>>>
>>> That being said, this driver should be fairly easy to expand to
>>> include support for the F71889FG chip (AFAIK only pin-configuration
>>> should be added, which probably is just a datasheet-reading
>>> exercise). Adding support however would be something I'd suggest
>>> doing across the LKML *first*, then (optionally) backport it later.
>>
>> Heck I gave it a try and attached you'll find a patch to add F71889FG
>> support to the current f71808e_wdt watchdog driver. The reason I
>> haven't send this to the LKML before however, is that I don't have
>> any system with that chip to test it, so please do test it and tell
>> me the results.
>
> I gave a try to your patch, on top of the other ones.
>
> For the kernel team, please note that some of the patches don't apply
> cleanly on 2.6.32, because of some changes in context (mostly
> coding-style changes) that apparently happened between 2.6.32 and the
> various patches landing. I manually edited the patches to make them
> apply properly, please ping me if you want the modified versions. The
> configs also need to be modified to include CONFIG_F71808E_WDT=m.

For the patches cherry-picking 729d273a, 8b6d043 and 96cb4eb (in that
order) will do. 8b6d043 will probably cause a merge-conflict, just
ditch IORESOURCE_WINDOW and you should be able to finish that
cherry-pick.

> Still for the kernel team, applying the release_mutex_region patch
> makes the ABI check script barf with the following changes:
> __devm_release_region module: vmlinux,
> version: 0x969a2a91 -> 0x70191467, export: EXPORT_SYMBOL
> __devm_request_region module: vmlinux,
> version: 0x51144912 -> 0x9e7acb57, export: EXPORT_SYMBOL

> For Giel, it appears the watchdog driver doesn't entirely work:
> It loads fine:
> f71808e_wdt: Found f71889fg watchdog chip, revision 21
> But watchdog-test (as from Documentation/watchdog/src/watchdog-test.c)
> doesn't work and outputs:
> Watchdog device not enabled.
> stracing it shows this:
> open("/dev/watchdog", O_WRONLY) = -1 ENODEV (No such
> device)

Right, it seems that I forgot a single break-statement (causing the
driver to fall through to the undetected part). Attached patch has this
fixed and should work properly.

--
Giel
--
"When all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail."
-- Abraham Maslow
 
Old 10-04-2010, 06:40 AM
Mike Hommey
 
Default Bug#597820: linux-image-2.6.32-5-amd64: 2.6.32 doesn't support the f71889fg sensor chip

On Sun, Oct 03, 2010 at 02:02:32PM +0200, Giel van Schijndel wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 03, 2010 at 09:14:44AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 03, 2010 at 01:14:24AM +0200, Giel van Schijndel wrote:
> >> On Sat, Oct 02, 2010 at 08:42:19PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 2010-09-28 at 10:36 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> >>>> I would also be interested in the watchdog support for the same
> >>>> chip,
> >>
> >> That patch does *not* add watchdog support for the Fintek F71889FG
> >> chip, it *only* adds support for the F71808E and the F71882FG.
> >
> > Oops.
> >
> >> Additionally a patch for the F71862FG is currently pending review and
> >> inclusion.
> >>
> >> That being said, this driver should be fairly easy to expand to
> >> include support for the F71889FG chip (AFAIK only pin-configuration
> >> should be added, which probably is just a datasheet-reading
> >> exercise). Adding support however would be something I'd suggest
> >> doing across the LKML *first*, then (optionally) backport it later.
> >>
> >>> However, the last patch (729d273aa7c86eb1406ade4eadf249cff188bf9a)
> >>> doesn't look right; surely it should be using the new
> >>> request_muxed_region() macro too?
> >>
> >> IIRC that patch was submitted and applied *before* 8b6d043, hence
> >> request_muxed_region() wasn't available and thus not used.
> >>
> >> The patch to make use of request_muxed_region() [1] has been acked [2]
> >> but not yet applied yet, I've just sent out a poke-mail (CC-ed to this
> >> bug) with the request for it to be committed.
> >>
> >> [1] <1280669455-31283-1-git-send-email-me@mortis.eu>
> >
> > AFAICS, this id refers to the patch that ended in
> > 96cb4eb019ce3185ec0d946a74b5a2202f5067c9.
>
> I can't find that commit in Torvald's tree. Who's the author and what's
> the first line of the commit message?

commit 96cb4eb019ce3185ec0d946a74b5a2202f5067c9
Author: Giel van Schijndel <me@mortis.eu>
Date: Sun Aug 1 15:30:55 2010 +0200

watchdog: f71808e_wdt: new watchdog driver for Fintek F71808E and F71882FG

In Linus' tree.
$ git describe --contains 96cb4eb019ce3185ec0d946a74b5a2202f5067c9
v2.6.36-rc1~290^2~2

> > The one you are referring to must be
> > http://marc.info/?l=lm-sensors&m=127219192018988&w=2
>
> Actually I'm referring to this patch (updated/rebased version of the one
> you're referring to):
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=128066949410960&w=2
>
> PS marc.info allows direct searching on Message-ID like so:
> http://marc.info/?i=$message_id
> e.g.:
> http://marc.info/?i=1280669455-31283-1-git-send-email-me@mortis.eu

Interestingly, I found this with your message-id:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/116315/

Mike



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20101004064033.GA4471@glandium.org">http://lists.debian.org/20101004064033.GA4471@glandium.org
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 11:44 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org