Re: Bug#730482: linux-image-3.9.6: PCI/USB reset not being done on Geode LX800 / CS5536
Hi Kernel Maintainers, Since the package doesn't exist this landed in the wrong place. Could you please have a look and take over the bug if useful? Thanks, Andrei On Lu, 25 nov 13, 14:59:32, lkcl wrote: Package: linux-image-3.9.6 Version: 3.9.6 Severity: normal the normal reporting information is being removed because the report is being generated from an alternative non-SMTP-networked system here's what has to be done to solve the problem: write_sys(/sys/bus/usb/devices/usb1/remove, 1) write_sys(/sys/bus/usb/devices/usb2/remove, 1) write_sys(/sys/devices/pci:00/:00:0f.5/remove, 1) write_sys(/sys/devices/pci:00/:00:0f.4/remove, 1) time.sleep(5) write_sys(/sys/devices/pci:00/pci_bus/:00/rescan, 1) time.sleep(5) the two devices are listed from lspci, here: 00:0f.4 USB controller: Advanced Micro Devices [AMD] CS5536 [Geode companion] OHC (rev 02) 00:0f.5 USB controller: Advanced Micro Devices [AMD] CS5536 [Geode companion] EHC (rev 02) which correspond to the two removes above. this is basically an incredibly drastic PCI USB host controller reset which has to be done in between mountkernfs and udev. it's therefore set up on an /etc/rc.S/S03 level script which carries out the resets that *should* be being done by the kernel modules themselves in the first place. symptoms are as follows: * put a USB 3G MiniPCIe modem into an alix6f2 LX800 board * ls /dev/ttyACM0 * reboot (do NOT powercycle) * log in again * ls /dev/ttyACM0 - FAILS. however if instead of a reboot a halt and power-cycle is carried out instead, the 2nd ls /dev/ttyACM0 SUCCEEDS. it *also* succeeds even without a powercycle if the above drastic PCI device reset is carried out. if however this is carried out *after* udev is allowed to pick things up then we have a bit of a problem, which is that e.g. other USB devices (such as USB memory sticks or USB-to-serial converters) suddenly find that in the middle of loading the kernel module the device just... disappears (because the USB hub it's connected to just got a kick in the nuts). this has probably been a long-standing bug in the CS5536 PCI host controller code. the reset should be being carried out at startup when the module is loaded. -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic http://nuvreauspam.ro/gpg-transition.txt signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#689851: initramfs-tools: Wrong keymap at boot while, prompting for the passphrase
Hello, I have upgraded initramfs-tools to version 0.115 and it looks like its fixed. Same keyboard layout like in version 0.107. Regards Ondřej Vodáček -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52971d02.3010...@gmail.com
Re: Bug#730482: linux-image-3.9.6: PCI/USB reset not being done on Geode LX800 / CS5536
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Andrei POPESCU andreimpope...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Kernel Maintainers, Since the package doesn't exist this landed in the wrong place. Could you please have a look and take over the bug if useful? thanks andrei. i've since observed that the two ethernet ports of the alix6f2 (which are PCI devices) are also giving symptoms which are consistent with not being reset [on soft-power-cycle]. the symptoms are that when using the alix6f2 as a router and DHCP server to another system which has ifplugd to monitor the up/down state of its network interface it *fails* to get a new lease. as in consistently fails, not maybe once or twice. as you're aware ifplugd monitors *hardware* ethernet up/down states. if the ethernet PCI devices (two on the alix6f2) are not being reset by the CS5536 kernel module on first load, then they will remain in an up state even whilst the board is going through its reboot sequence. the consequence of that is that there will be no notification to ifplugd, and thus any systems on the other end will lose connectivity but will not have any normal way to detect that. i've fixed this by reducing the DHCP lease time on the alix6f2's dnsmasq entry to 1 minute (blegh). l. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/capweedxpxok9+vwp4hw5ururjb-8izpoovectsddqkpvoex...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Implementing latest stable kernel into Debian stable.
I meant that most normal users use debian stable (mostly for servers) and debian testing (mostly for desktops) Why can't we have always latest version of linux kernel on for example debian testing and focus on updating it I belive kernel developers know what they do and for the most parts the kernel should be actually pretty stable after all. And yeah most distros fe . Ubuntu follow Debian structure (they are actually copying it) so if this will happen in debian we will see newest kernel in most other distros as well . So I belive it the kernel stable should actually be in atleast debian testing (NOT IN EXPERIMENTAL) Software developers encourage people to always use latest stable software of their's I belive this should be the case here as well... 2013/11/28 Piotr Walaszczyk pietiatib...@gmail.com: I meant that most normal users use debian stable (mostly for servers) and debian testing (mostly for desktops) Why can't we have always latest version of linux kernel on for example debian testing and focus on updating it I belive kernel developers know what they do and for the most parts the kernel should be actually pretty stable after all. And yeah most distros fe . Ubuntu follow Debian structure (they are actually copying it) so if this will happen in debian we will see newest kernel in most other distros as well . So I belive it the kernel stable should actually be in atleast debian testing (NOT IN EXPERIMENTAL) Software developers encourage people to always use latest stable software of their's I belive this should be the case here as well... 2013/11/20 Ian Campbell i...@hellion.org.uk: On Tue, 2013-11-19 at 14:08 +0100, Piotr Walaszczyk wrote: Which creates a question wouldnt it be better to actually use latest linux kernel on debian stable Stable in both context means, roughly, only accepting bug fixes. The idea being that things will only get better and the risk of regressions is low. It also doesn't necessarily mean bug free but rather bugs are known. This is the case when moving between Linux versions, which all have buckets of new and potentially unproven code. If you want to use a newer kernel on stable Debian then you can use the kernels from backports. (because that's what actually most normal users use) Your premise here is flawed. Most normal users use distro kernels which for the most part follow a similar strategy to Debian. and update it so it doesn't have these regressions ? We take a reasonably current kernel at the time Debian freezes and follow the stable branch associated with that release. Ian. 2013/11/19 Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk: On Tue, 2013-11-19 at 01:37 +0100, Piotr Walaszczyk wrote: Does it means that stable linux kernel is not actually stable and is full of bugs/crashes?? A 'stable release' means a version that will be supported for some time with only relatively small changes (Debian: point releases; Linux: stable updates). It has nothing to do with whether the software crashes. A Linux stable release usually does include lots of regressions which are mostly fixed by stable updates. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Teamwork is essential - it allows you to blame someone else. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1384936227.8521.5.ca...@dagon.hellion.org.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAFrYZiPZ8=AMvz=jt89punwb4dr+cb9vtpfcyxedtq6uhps...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Implementing latest stable kernel into Debian stable.
On Thu, 2013-11-28 at 15:02 +0100, Piotr Walaszczyk wrote: I meant that most normal users use debian stable (mostly for servers) and debian testing (mostly for desktops) Why can't we have always latest version of linux kernel on for example debian testing and focus on updating it I belive kernel developers know what they do and for the most parts the kernel should be actually pretty stable after all. And yeah most distros fe . Ubuntu follow Debian structure (they are actually copying it) so if this will happen in debian we will see newest kernel in most other distros as well . No, Ubuntu and many other derivatives package the kernel independently of Debian. So I belive it the kernel stable should actually be in atleast debian testing (NOT IN EXPERIMENTAL) Software developers encourage people to always use latest stable software of their's I belive this should be the case here as well... Debian does not generally do this so maybe you want some other distribution. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Usenet is essentially a HUGE group of people passing notes in class. - Rachel Kadel, `A Quick Guide to Newsgroup Etiquette' signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Linux 3.10.y packages for wheezy
Hi For a while now I have been packaging 3.10 longterm kernels for wheezy. While I'm doing this for my own use, I have made my apt repository public [1], just in case anyone else finds my work usefull. My packages are based on the unreleased 3.10.13 package in the debian svn repository, to which I have added upstream longterm updates and backports of most packaging improvements from later debian kernels. My repository currently contains two packageversions: 3.10.20-0~bpo70+1 which is ABI compatible with 3.10.11-1~bpo70+1 from backports.debian.org, but lacks some upstream fixes and debian packaging improvements; and 3.10.20-0~bpo70+2 which isn't, but doesn't. While they are built and tested on wheezy, I can see no reason who they shouldn't work on squeeze or jessie as well. My repository only contains amd64 and i386 packages, as that is what I use, but I also have completely untested cross- compiled armel and armhf packages, which I can add if anyone wants them, though I would recommend rebuilding the source packages on actual arm hardware instead... I have pushed clones of my git-svn repositories to github at [2, 3, 4] in case anyone is interested in the individual changes I made, but most of it is just boring backport work. I have attached the only two patches, one for linux and one for linux-tools, I think might be of interest to the debian kernel team. Best regards Jon Severinsson [1] deb http://apt.severinsson.net/debian wheezy kernel [2] https://github.com/jonseverinsson/debian-linux [3] https://github.com/jonseverinsson/debian-linux-tools [4] https://github.com/jonseverinsson/debian-linux-latest From 56837cde42048ee45e292abcd155dc3ffd51e2c9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jon Severinsson j...@severinsson.net Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 18:00:00 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] debian/rules: Don't kill a git-svn clone on make -f debian/rules orig. --- debian/rules |2 +- 1 fil ändrad, 1 tillägg(+), 1 borttagning(-) diff --git a/debian/rules b/debian/rules index 6867d47e..b04b1de2 100755 --- a/debian/rules +++ b/debian/rules @@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ TAR_ORIG_NAME = $(SOURCE)_$(VERSION).orig.tar.xz TAR_ORIG = $(firstword $(wildcard ../$(TAR_ORIG_NAME)) $(wildcard ../orig/$(TAR_ORIG_NAME))) orig: $(DIR_ORIG) - rsync --delete --exclude debian --exclude .svk --exclude .svn --link-dest=$(DIR_ORIG)/ -a $(DIR_ORIG)/ . + rsync --delete --exclude /debian --exclude .svk --exclude .svn --exclude .git --link-dest=$(DIR_ORIG)/ -a $(DIR_ORIG)/ . QUILT_PATCHES='$(CURDIR)/debian/patches' QUILT_PC=.pc quilt push --quiltrc - -a -q --fuzz=0 $(DIR_ORIG): -- 1.7.10.4 From 31c280b62dc4da934c6cea9c887e75be928339da Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jon Severinsson j...@severinsson.net Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 18:00:00 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] Fix a cross compilation issue. --- debian/changelog |1 + debian/rules.real | 10 +- 2 filer ändrade, 10 tillägg(+), 1 borttagning(-) diff --git a/debian/changelog b/debian/changelog index 541e1895..6dd22703 100644 --- a/debian/changelog +++ b/debian/changelog @@ -2,6 +2,7 @@ linux (3.10.18-0~bpo70+2) UNRELEASED; urgency=low [ Jon Severinsson ] * Update ABI files to 3.10.18-0~bpo70+1 + * Fix a cross compilation issue. -- Jon Severinsson j...@severinsson.net Sun, 24 Nov 2013 18:00:00 +0100 diff --git a/debian/rules.real b/debian/rules.real index c7397c0d..dba2a5f0 100644 --- a/debian/rules.real +++ b/debian/rules.real @@ -20,6 +20,14 @@ ifeq ($(DISTRIBUTOR),) DISTRIBUTOR := Debian endif +ifdef OVERRIDE_HOST_TYPE + CROSS_COMPILE := $(OVERRIDE_HOST_TYPE)- +else ifneq ($(DEB_BUILD_ARCH),$(DEB_HOST_ARCH)) + CROSS_COMPILE := $(DEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE)- +else + CROSS_COMPILE := +endif + export PYTHONPATH = $(CURDIR)/debian/lib/python export DH_OPTIONS export DEB_HOST_ARCH DEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE DEB_BUILD_ARCH @@ -347,7 +355,7 @@ ifeq ($(MODULES),True) ifeq ($(DEBUG),True) set -o pipefail; \ find $(PACKAGE_DIR) -name '*.ko' | sed 's|$(PACKAGE_DIR)/lib/modules/$(REAL_VERSION)/kernel/||' | while read module ; do \ - objcopy --add-gnu-debuglink=$(DIR)/$$module $(PACKAGE_DIR)/lib/modules/$(REAL_VERSION)/kernel/$$module || exit; \ + $(CROSS_COMPILE)objcopy --add-gnu-debuglink=$(DIR)/$$module $(PACKAGE_DIR)/lib/modules/$(REAL_VERSION)/kernel/$$module || exit; \ done endif cp $(DIR)/.config $(PACKAGE_DIR)/boot/config-$(REAL_VERSION) -- 1.7.10.4 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Implementing latest stable kernel into Debian stable.
Maybe its time for a change then ? There are much more pros than cons in this case I think this message should be sent to the one who actually manages the kernel packages and he should do a list of why not and why yes and then decide. 2013/11/28 Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk: On Thu, 2013-11-28 at 15:02 +0100, Piotr Walaszczyk wrote: I meant that most normal users use debian stable (mostly for servers) and debian testing (mostly for desktops) Why can't we have always latest version of linux kernel on for example debian testing and focus on updating it I belive kernel developers know what they do and for the most parts the kernel should be actually pretty stable after all. And yeah most distros fe . Ubuntu follow Debian structure (they are actually copying it) so if this will happen in debian we will see newest kernel in most other distros as well . No, Ubuntu and many other derivatives package the kernel independently of Debian. So I belive it the kernel stable should actually be in atleast debian testing (NOT IN EXPERIMENTAL) Software developers encourage people to always use latest stable software of their's I belive this should be the case here as well... Debian does not generally do this so maybe you want some other distribution. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Usenet is essentially a HUGE group of people passing notes in class. - Rachel Kadel, `A Quick Guide to Newsgroup Etiquette' -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/cafryzinunc6gvgkz5yznzdz8oz0or7x1x6n1ralc_kqp+dp...@mail.gmail.com
