On Sunday 14 September 2008, Alex Joni wrote:
>>>You can cut the power after doing a controlled shutdown and it gets to the
>>>"power down" message, although it won't power itself down.
>>
>> If only I could get that message :(
>
>Gene is probably running dapper, so what he said might not apply.
>O
AIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC)"
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 12:26 AM
Subject: Re: [Emc-users] New error after upgrade
>>>You can cut the power after doing a controlled shutdown and it gets to
>>>the
>>>"power down"
>>You can cut the power after doing a controlled shutdown and it gets to the
>>"power down" message, although it won't power itself down.
>
> If only I could get that message :(
Gene is probably running dapper, so what he said might not apply.
On Dapper (Ubuntu 6.06 Dapper Drake) when you shutdow
On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 13:19:46 -0500, you wrote:
>You can cut the power after doing a controlled shutdown and it gets to the
>"power down" message, although it won't power itself down.
If only I could get that message :(
Steve Blackmore
--
On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 18:52:25 +0300, you wrote:
>> ?? It never says "Power Down"
>>
>> I get an Ubuntu screen, with a progress bar that goes down to zero and
>> that's it.
>
>It does, but you need to switch to a console where the messages are printed.
>Alt-F6 or something like that (try F1-F10).
On Sunday 14 September 2008, Steve Blackmore wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 09:57:36 -0400, you wrote:
>>>I'm not bothered about APM, but could do with ACPI back on here, will
>>>ACPI=FORCE do that?
>>
>>I don't think that is a good idea as IIRC acpi does something to the
>> interrupt handling, and th
Steve Blackmore wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 19:14:38 +0300, you wrote:
>
>
>> Is there a simple "get round" for now?
>>
> So far I have seen only a couple, incomplete, answers from you.
> I still don't know if you use probe_parport in your configs, or if you
>
> On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 09:57:36 -0400, you wrote:
>
>
>>>I'm not bothered about APM, but could do with ACPI back on here, will
>>>ACPI=FORCE do that?
>>
>>I don't think that is a good idea as IIRC acpi does something to the
>>interrupt
>>handling, and this will royally mess with the real time abi
On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 09:57:36 -0400, you wrote:
>>I'm not bothered about APM, but could do with ACPI back on here, will
>>ACPI=FORCE do that?
>
>I don't think that is a good idea as IIRC acpi does something to the interrupt
>handling, and this will royally mess with the real time abilities of emc
On Sunday 14 September 2008, Steve Blackmore wrote:
>On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 19:14:38 +0300, you wrote:
>> Is there a simple "get round" for now?
>
> So far I have seen only a couple, incomplete, answers from you.
> I still don't know if you use probe_parport in your configs, or if you
On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 19:14:38 +0300, you wrote:
> Is there a simple "get round" for now?
So far I have seen only a couple, incomplete, answers from you.
I still don't know if you use probe_parport in your configs, or if you
actually need to do that.
Taking that out from
Is there a simple "get round" for now?
>>>
>>> So far I have seen only a couple, incomplete, answers from you.
>>> I still don't know if you use probe_parport in your configs, or if you
>>> actually need to do that.
>>> Taking that out from the config would probably make your error go away.
>
On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 13:23:20 +0300, you wrote:
>sorry.. I should finish thinking before I write and send...
>
>>> Is there a simple "get round" for now?
>>
>> So far I have seen only a couple, incomplete, answers from you.
>> I still don't know if you use probe_parport in your configs, or if you
>
On Saturday 13 September 2008, Alex Joni wrote:
> Sure, it's always been open for review/comment, though we should move this
> to the emc-devel list,
Still awaiting answers to other questions on the dev list, so does it really
make a difference where the topic is raised ?
---
sorry.. I should finish thinking before I write and send...
>> Is there a simple "get round" for now?
>
> So far I have seen only a couple, incomplete, answers from you.
> I still don't know if you use probe_parport in your configs, or if you
> actually need to do that.
> Taking that out from the
> Is there a simple "get round" for now?
So far I have seen only a couple, incomplete, answers from you.
I still don't know if you use probe_parport in your configs, or if you
actually need to do that.
Taking that out from the config would probably make your error go away.
> I'm also battling wi
On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 09:35:06 +0300, you wrote:
>I agree, it shouldn't happen.
>
>> Do you wish to discuss the correct way to handle parport registration, or
>> is
>> the code not open to review/comment without inciting cries of "fud" from
>> the
>> CCM dept. ?
>
>Sure, it's always been open for
>
> On Thursday 11 September 2008, Alex Joni wrote:
>> I get the error your pastebin shows when I try to load probe_parport more
>> than one time.
>
> Attempting to load a module more than once should result in -EEXIST being
> returned. If you are getting as far as triggering a call trace, then the
Alex
On Thursday 11 September 2008, Alex Joni wrote:
> I get the error your pastebin shows when I try to load probe_parport more
> than one time.
Attempting to load a module more than once should result in -EEXIST being
returned. If you are getting as far as triggering a call trace, then there
chine Controller (EMC)"
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 10:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Emc-users] New error after upgrade
> Steve Blackmore wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 23:31:00 +0300, you wrote:
>>
>>> the culprit might be probe_parport, can you check if parport_pc shows u
Steve Blackmore wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 23:31:00 +0300, you wrote:
>
>> the culprit might be probe_parport, can you check if parport_pc shows up
>> under lsmod (right after booting the machine, then after running emc2), and
>> if you have loadrt probe_parport in your hal file.
>
> I do ind
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 23:31:00 +0300, you wrote:
>the culprit might be probe_parport, can you check if parport_pc shows up
>under lsmod (right after booting the machine, then after running emc2), and
>if you have loadrt probe_parport in your hal file.
I do indeed, extract from hal file
loadrt pr
Alex
On Wednesday 10 September 2008, Alex Joni wrote:
> the culprit might be probe_parport, can you check if parport_pc shows up
> under lsmod (right after booting the machine, then after running emc2), and
> if you have loadrt probe_parport in your hal file.
Indeed, probe_parport is the offendi
t; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC)"
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 10:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Emc-users] New error after upgrade
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 17:17:35 +0100, you wrote:
>
>Alex
>
>On Tuesday 09 September 2008, Alex Joni wrote:
>> c
Hi Steve
On Wednesday 10 September 2008, Steve Blackmore wrote:
> Thanks Paul - I do have the modules If anybody needs them,
Thanks, but no - You get to keep all the broken pieces ;-)
> what's the next course of action? Is it something I've done or an error in
> the updates somewhere?
It is no
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 17:17:35 +0100, you wrote:
>
>Alex
>
>On Tuesday 09 September 2008, Alex Joni wrote:
>> can you post a list of modules loaded?
>
>You don't need a list of loaded modules to diagnose the problem (actually,
>there are two).
>
>> From: "Steve Blackmore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > [
Alex
On Tuesday 09 September 2008, Alex Joni wrote:
> can you post a list of modules loaded?
You don't need a list of loaded modules to diagnose the problem (actually,
there are two).
> From: "Steve Blackmore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > [ 6204.322690] Pid: 5635, comm: insmod Tainted: GF 2.6
-
From: "Steve Blackmore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 11:55 PM
Subject: [Emc-users] New error after upgrade
>
> Hi Guys - getting a new error after installing upgrading and making my
> own setup using stepconf. On opening any emc setup, I ge
Hi Guys - getting a new error after installing upgrading and making my
own setup using stepconf. On opening any emc setup, I get an error on
the first attempt, the second attempt always succeeds?
Even to my untrained eye looking through the error log I spotted the
following:
6204.322680] says: d
29 matches
Mail list logo
