From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754026Ab3BMHQa (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Feb 2013 02:16:30 -0500 Received: from rhlx01.hs-esslingen.de ([129.143.116.10]:47783 "EHLO rhlx01.hs-esslingen.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753584Ab3BMHQ3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Feb 2013 02:16:29 -0500 Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 08:16:28 +0100 From: Andreas Mohr To: Andreas Mohr Cc: Greg KH , Alan Stern , Linus Torvalds , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-usb@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [REGRESSION] [nailed] USB boot failure: USB: EHCI: make ehci-pci a separate driver Message-ID: <20130213071628.GA4211@rhlx01.hs-esslingen.de> References: <20130210001442.GA5744@rhlx01.hs-esslingen.de> <20130210140554.GA5299@rhlx01.hs-esslingen.de> <20130212160727.GA15857@rhlx01.hs-esslingen.de> <20130212161617.GA3887@kroah.com> <20130213064436.GA22583@rhlx01.hs-esslingen.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130213064436.GA22583@rhlx01.hs-esslingen.de> X-Priority: none User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 07:44:36AM +0100, Andreas Mohr wrote: > So, what to do? I'm now going to do some experimentation with git revert > on some revision, and I'm trying to establish the USB port dependency > (BIOS-owned handoff root hub invisible!?, as discussed in initial mail). After some bingo moment, seems the solution is easier than expected: andi@andinet:~$ ls /tmp/initrd_extracted/lib/modules/3.7.0-rc5+/kernel/drivers/usb/host/ ehci-hcd.ko ohci-hcd.ko uhci-hcd.ko xhci-hcd.ko andi@andinet:~$ ls /lib/modules/3.7.0-rc5+/kernel/drivers/usb/host/ ehci-hcd.ko isp116x-hcd.ko sl811_cs.ko uhci-hcd.ko ehci-pci.ko ohci-hcd.ko sl811-hcd.ko whci hwa-hc.ko r8a66597-hcd.ko u132-hcd.ko xhci-hcd.ko So it's probably only that the initrd simply fails to ship the ehci-pci.ko module (I could verify this by extending initrd content, BTW). Now the question would be: are modules listed in a static list on initramfs package/config side, or does the kernel fail to signal the list of required modules properly? (e.g. did some config-side files fail to get upgraded for this dependency??) So maybe it's not a "regression" per se, but it's at least a grave usability issue on kernel upgrade which should be handled as benignly as possible (i.e., without any disruption). Thanks, Andreas Mohr