From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262218AbVAJL7f (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Jan 2005 06:59:35 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262219AbVAJL7f (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Jan 2005 06:59:35 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:12928 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262218AbVAJL7d (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Jan 2005 06:59:33 -0500 From: David Howells In-Reply-To: <20050107192158.GA30096@kroah.com> References: <20050107192158.GA30096@kroah.com> To: Greg KH Cc: Mark_H_Johnson@Raytheon.com, Andrew Morton , lkml Subject: Re: 2.6.10-mm1 X-Mailer: MH-E 7.82; nmh 1.0.4; GNU Emacs 21.3.50.1 Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 11:59:15 +0000 Message-ID: <27089.1105358355@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Greg KH wrote: > > [1] Should the code generating the warning be active without CONFIG_PM > > being set? I believe the code is attempting to make sure the device is properly powered on in the first place. CONFIG_PM only governs later power management. > > [2] Can you explain why the message is generated (why not silently ignore > > the older hardware) or is there something in an init script (I am using > > Fedora Core 2) that [incorrectly] assumes power management is available to > > cause the message to be printed? > > David, any ideas? Should I just revert this change for now? Please don't. A system with this Promise 20269 card in it hangs without this patch, I can see the splat happen with a PCI analyser. The function being altered is almost certainly _wrong_ for non-PM-version-2 cards, but I don't have an old enough PCI spec to check. A better solution would be to drop the level of the printk() to KERN_DEBUG or to delete it entirely, assuming the patch otherwise works for Mark. David