On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 09:36:00AM +0200, Christian Zigotzky wrote: > Here you are: > > i2c-0 i2c Radeon i2c bit bus 0x90 I2C adapter > i2c-1 i2c Radeon i2c bit bus 0x91 I2C adapter > i2c-2 i2c Radeon i2c bit bus 0x92 I2C adapter > i2c-3 i2c Radeon i2c bit bus 0x93 I2C adapter > i2c-4 i2c Radeon i2c bit bus 0x94 I2C adapter > i2c-5 i2c Radeon i2c bit bus 0x95 I2C adapter > i2c-6 i2c Radeon i2c bit bus 0x96 I2C adapter > i2c-7 i2c Radeon i2c bit bus 0x97 I2C adapter > i2c-8 i2c card0-DP-1 I2C adapter > i2c-9 i2c card0-DP-2 I2C adapter Thanks. So, that means you don't have any bus from i2c-pasemi, since all numbered busses it wants to have [0-2] are already taken by the Radeon card. This has always been the case, no change in behaviour since 2008. Only since last merge window, the I2C core just reports this conflict. Maybe a bit too noisy? I don't think using i2c_add_numbered_adapter is a good idea together with PCI cards. I'd prefer to see i2c_add_adapter used. However, I don't know the platform at all and if there is someone relying on a static numbering scheme? I would assume this is not the case, because nobody really noticed that the busses do not probe for a while. Anyone here with more insight about PASEMI platform?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
