|
Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing |
| Summary: | AMD/ATI SB600/700/800 use same SMBus controller devID | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [openSUSE] openSUSE 10.3 | Reporter: | Forgotten User FOUTW3E5Ow <forgotten_FOUTW3E5Ow> |
| Component: | Kernel | Assignee: | Jean Delvare <jdelvare> |
| Status: | RESOLVED INVALID | QA Contact: | E-mail List <qa-bugs> |
| Severity: | Major | ||
| Priority: | P5 - None | CC: | forgotten_FOUTW3E5Ow, jeffm, joachim.deguara |
| Version: | Beta 1 | ||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | openSUSE 10.3 | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Found By: | --- | Services Priority: | |
| Business Priority: | Blocker: | --- | |
| Marketing QA Status: | --- | IT Deployment: | --- |
| Bug Depends on: | 284195 | ||
| Bug Blocks: | |||
| Attachments: | SB600/SB700/SB800 use same SMBus controll device ID | ||
|
Description
Forgotten User FOUTW3E5Ow
2007-08-15 03:03:40 UTC
Created attachment 157554 [details]
SB600/SB700/SB800 use same SMBus controll device ID
Besides removing the SB700 wrong patch, the attached patch add SB800 support to kernel as well as SB700.
Should this also be sent to the stable@kernel.org developers also so they can fix the 2.6.22.y releases? I have sent this patch to i2c maintainer Jean Delvare<khali@linux-fr.org> and i2c@lm-sensors.org before I created this bugzilla item. I think they will add this patch into the linux kernel source tree after their review. I think this patch cound NOT appear in 2.6.22.y kernel version, it may appear in 2.6.23 or later. This patch has been accepted by linux i2c maintainer, and will appear from linux-2.6.23-rc4 most probably. I will present the git link of this patch after I get it. I find that the original SB600 patch is NOT in openSUSE10.2 kernel source: http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=4e6697fcc194db8b45559a9863947c6cbfeea363 I'm not sure whether the original SB600 patch has been applied to openSUSE10.3 kernel. There are altogether 3 SB600/SB700 SMBus related patches(in time order): 1. SB600 original patch: http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=4e6697fcc194db8b45559a9863947c6cbfeea363 2. SB700 SMBus patch (useless): http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=c29c22218b99dad95f7cd0281415a854aeee805c 3. this patch attachment in this bugzilla, which remove SB700 error patch and add support to SB800 SMBus. So please apply these three patches one by one. Thanks My comments above have provided the needed information. thanks. Jean, this is your playground. Care to comment and/or apply if you consider it safe for 10.3? Support for the ATI SB600 SMBus is already included in openSuse 10.3 (it was added upstream in 2.6.21 and openSuse 10.3 is based on 2.6.22.) The bug (wrong PCI ID listed) which the attached patch fixes, was introduced upstream in 2.6.23-rc1. This means that openSuse 10.3 is not affected, and neither is 2.6.22 upstream, so there's nothing to fix there. Given that the SB700 and SB800 SMBus use the same PCI ID as the SB600 SMBus (and I thank AMD for this), they are already supported properly in openSuse 10.3. It's just not documented, but I don't think it's a problem. After all, the whole point of reusing the PCI IDs where possible is to avoid backporting patches, isn't it? So I think that this bug can be closed as invalid with no further action. Jeff, is this OK with you? Thanks Jean, that works for me. Shane, we've seen a number of reports from you recently that either add hardware support to an already shipped release or fix problems which don't exist in our kernel simply because the problems were introduced in a version after 2.6.22 or fixed before 2.6.22. I appreciate the effort in keeping us updated, but the former is a violation of our patch acceptance policy, and the latter could be avoided by checking the X-Git-Tag header for the version in the raw version of the git patch to ensure it's a patch that is needed for our kernel. Either way, unnecessary effort could be avoided with a little due diligence. Closing as INVALID. Hi Jeff, sorry for the unnecessary work to you. Usually when we create a kernel patch, we will submit it to kernel.org and many linux distributions to be released very soon through bugzillas. We will check it more carefully in the future to see whether the bugzilla is really valid to this distribution. Thanks. Shane |