On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 22:49:56 +0800 Ed Greshko <ed.greshko@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 8/22/19 2:49 PM, Gianluca Cecchi wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 9:51 AM Ed Greshko <ed.greshko@xxxxxxxxxxx > > <mailto:ed.greshko@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: > > > > > > Just an idea. > > > > Is there a difference in the output of "lsmod" when run on the > > 5.2 v.s. 5.1 kernel? > > > > > > If both with kernel 5.2.9 and 5.1.20 I execute "lsmod | sort" and > > then a diff of the output produced I get: > > > > > > Sadly, the resulting reformatting of email made the output > incomprehensible to me. > > What I was hoping to determine was if some module was loaded in the > working case but not the failing case. > > At this point I'd go with Samuel's advice and file a bug report > upstream. I noticed that the working version had module ecc, and the non-working version doesn't. Also, the working version had intel_ishtp_loader, and the non-working version doesn't. And the working version had typec_displayport, and the non-working version doesn't. Those seem like they might be pertinent to your problem. I can't say *why* they are missing. Are they obsolete? Are they folded into other modules? Has fedora changed its kernel parameters to stop building them? Asking in a ticket is probably the best way to get some answers. _______________________________________________ users mailing list -- users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
