Jean Delvare <khali at linux-fr.org> wrote: > > Hi Tony, > > > I've only seen the savage bug report. Yes, unfortunately, this is the > > case of 2 drivers attempting to control a single device since the > > savagefb and the i2c prosavage drivers will attempt to ioremap the > > same mmio region. If you need the i2c prosavage bus, then savagefb > > must be completely disabled, as setting CONFIG_FB_SAVAGE_I2C to n will > > not help. If both savagefb and i2c are needed, then you just have to > > use the i2c bus registered by savagefb. > > I understand the problem you describe, and it should certainly be > addressed by Kconfig dependencies. However, I don't think this is the > problem here. If you look at the configuration file, you'll see that > neither i2c-prosavage nor i2c-savage4 are enabled: > > # CONFIG_I2C_PROSAVAGE is not set > # CONFIG_I2C_SAVAGE4 is not set > > > And yes, there is code duplication, but unfortunately savagefb cannot > > use the i2c-prosavage bus since one of them will fail to acquire the > > io regions. > > I wonder if the standalone i2c drivers are needed at all anymore, now > that the framebuffer driver includes the same functionality. > > > I haven't seen the nvidiafb report, but it is probably something > > similar. > > Note that there is no i2c bus driver for nvidia graphics adapters in the > kernel tree. The conflicting driver is rivatv and it lives outside the > kernel tree. > > Miles, are you by any chance using rivatv? > > Tony, Miles' original report is here: > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=111076667232062&w=2 > Sorry for providing the link before. (I'm getting in a mess here. bugzilla is good for some things after all) Do we consider this to all be fixed up now?
