On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 05:06:53PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote: > On Wed, 20 Jan 2010, Lennart Sorensen wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 03:20:46PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote: > > > Okay, this means that something else is affecting the IRQ line. > > > > Yep. I went and disabled irq5 on the LPC bus, and that didn't help. > > > > > > Interestingly the number of interrupts listed in /proc/interrupts is > > > > exactly 300000. > > > > > > That's probably because the kernel disabled the IRQ after 100000 > > > unhandled interrupts, and re-enabled it each time a new device was > > > registered for that IRQ. > > > > Certainly seems to be the case. > > > > > Or you could just stop using USB on the old box. :-) > > > > Well I just tried another box, and same thing. > > > > If I boot with 'irqpoll' then everything seems fine. > > > > Any idea how I can figure out why irqpoll makes it happy? Does it give > > any reports anywhere about misrouted irqs? > > Not that I know of. That's unfortunate. After all it would be nice if irqpoll found an unhandled irq and called all the other handlers and the irq went away, then a report of which handler cleared it would be very helpful. > Does 2.6.26 fail on the new machine? Yes. As far as I can tell some machines don't see the problem. I am still investigating that. > Are you using a .config different from the one that used to work with > 2.6.26? Well of course, but not for the USB settings. It is supposed to be the same as far as possible. I will go compare them in more detail. -- Len Sorensen -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
