linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2.6.29.2] PXA I2C: Define log level for i2c PXA error report

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0905111458290.6308@venus.araneidae.co.uk>
Date:	Mon, 11 May 2009 15:01:49 +0100 (BST)
From:	Michael Abbott <michael@...neidae.co.uk>
To:	伊泽 <wxc200@...il.com>
cc:	Mark Brown <broonie@...ena.org.uk>, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.29.2] PXA I2C: Define log level for i2c PXA error 
 report

On Mon, 11 May 2009, ÒÁÔó wrote:
> 2009/5/11 Mark Brown <broonie@...ena.org.uk>:
> > On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 11:31:51AM +0100, Michael Abbott wrote:
> >
> >> static struct i2c_pxa_platform_data xcep_i2c_platform_data  = {
> >>         .class = I2C_CLASS_HWMON
> >> };
> >
> >> ...
> >>         pxa_set_i2c_info(&xcep_i2c_platform_data);
> >
> >> This is called in the .init_machine method, and the target system is a
> >> PXA255.
> >
> >> However, after the error messages on startup, all the sensors seem to be
> >> detected and seem to be operating normally.
> >
> > These errors occur when attempting to talk to non-existant devices 
> > which is almost certainly going to happen with the class based device 
> > probing since the kernel will probe for each device at each possible 
> > address on each I2C bus.
> that happen when the device driver registered but the hardware doesnot 
> exist.i once met this when my camera driver could not find the hardware 
> camera.

Fair enough.  I have a bit of a challenge to specify the precise list of 
I2C devices at the board level, as the board support is for a CPU module 
with the I2C bus off-board ... and clearly I can live with the error 
messages, anyway.

Still, I think it would make more sense for these to be one-liners; I 
guess routine probing failures ought to be reported in a slightly 
different way.  I'll see if I can figure out a sensible patch.