Your message dated Sun, 07 Feb 2016 22:43:08 +
with message-id
and subject line Closing bugs assigned to linux-2.6 package
has caused the Debian Bug report #630769,
regarding parport_pc: EPP mode detection fails due to "Check for Intel bug"
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that
ail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
630593: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=630593
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: linux-image-2.6
Severity: normal
Tags:
Hi Jonathan,
Do you sure that it was Intel 82091 which suffered with the issue?
Looking to the datasheet for 82091AA, I see that it does have
configuration register, where its revision and stepping is available.
So, It is straightforward to detect broken chip. Unfortunately, I
don't have this hard
See code inside CONFIG_PARPORT_PC_SUPERIO define. I am not sure, how
this helps, because we probably never know all possible io
controllers.
--
With best regards,
Matwey V. Kornilov
http://blog.matwey.name
xmpp:0x2...@jabber.ru
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org
Hi,
Accroding to
http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/9901.2/1285.html,
this bug could be solved more efficiently by directly probing the
configuration regsiter to determine EPP state.
Could you send the superio chips reference ?
Bastien
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-r
found 630593 linux-2.6/3.1.1-1
quit
Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda wrote:
> I don't have any hope that it would be solved in the linux kernel, but at
> least in the debian kernel it could be applied.
So, it seems that "the Intel bug" is that Intel's 82091 is not
advertised to implement (and does not
A Dijous, 15 de setembre de 2011, Bastien ROUCARIES va escriure:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Bastien ROUCARIES
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda
> > wrote:
> >> Hi again,
> >>
> >> sorry for the noise and my mistake. The patch...
> >>
> >> there's a bu
On Thursday 15 September 2011, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Greg KH wrote:
> > You can not add someone else's signed-off-by: line to a patch, please go
> > re-read Documentation/SubmittingPatches as to why.
> >
> > And did Adam originally write this patch? Or did you? If Adam, please
> > se
Hi,
Greg KH wrote:
> You can not add someone else's signed-off-by: line to a patch, please go
> re-read Documentation/SubmittingPatches as to why.
>
> And did Adam originally write this patch? Or did you? If Adam, please
> set the authorship information properly.
>From a quick Google search:
The description of nasty problem that lead to this patch
http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/9901.2/1285.html
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debia
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Bastien ROUCARIES
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda
> wrote:
>> Hi again,
>>
>> sorry for the noise and my mistake. The patch...
>>
>> there's a bug in the parport module that have been reported (in another
>> places) some time ag
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda
wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> sorry for the noise and my mistake. The patch...
>
> there's a bug in the parport module that have been reported (in another
> places) some time ago [1]. Also, this bug was reported at Redhat [2], but
> nobody follow
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 02:41:14PM +0200, Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> sorry for the noise and my mistake. The patch...
>
> there's a bug in the parport module that have been reported (in another
> places) some time ago [1]. Also, this bug was reported at Redhat [2], but
> n
Hi again,
sorry for the noise and my mistake. The patch...
there's a bug in the parport module that have been reported (in another
places) some time ago [1]. Also, this bug was reported at Redhat [2], but
nobody follow the report and it was closed.
As Adam Baker said [1] :
A long time ago (~
Hi again,
sorry for the noise and my mistake. The patch...
there's a bug in the parport module that have been reported (in another
places) some time ago [1]. Also, this bug was reported at Redhat [2], but
nobody follow the report and it was closed.
As Adam Baker said [1] :
A long time ago (~
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 11:33:18AM +0200, Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda wrote:
> Hi,
>
> there's a bug in the parport module that have been reported (in another
> places) some time ago [1]. Also, this bug was reported at Redhat [2], but
> nobody follow the report and it was closed.
>
> As Adam bake
Hi,
there's a bug in the parport module that have been reported (in another
places) some time ago [1]. Also, this bug was reported at Redhat [2], but
nobody follow the report and it was closed.
As Adam baked said [1] :
A long time ago (~ 10 years), Intel produced a chipset that
included brok
Hi,
first of all sorry for the delay. I have been out for a few days and I don't
see this email.
A Dijous, 11 d'agost de 2011, Jonathan Nieder va escriure:
[...]
>
> That's it. Does it sound reasonable to you?
Yes, it's so reasonable. I hope write it soon I send it. Thanks a lot for the
repo
Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda wrote:
>> After such a long time it is probably
>> appropriate to just remove the test
> [...]
>> I have applied the patch to the standard debian kernel and it compiles and
>> runs perfectly. Applied to some Dell hardware, now the EPP mode is de
19 matches
Mail list logo
