>> My guess is that the POST hangs because of the high (and obviously >> incorrect) CPU temp value. LOL. Yeah, could be the BIOS is saying "Hey, this guy's CPU is already hot enough to roast a chicken ... maybe we shouldn't continue with the boot process!" (Although it will merrily continue booting if I simply tell it not to DISPLAY my hardware status during POST. Sounds like the BIOS could use a little more robust programming!) >> The first thing to try would be to unlug the system for a few minutes. >> Don't just power it off. Unplug it. Most motherboard nowadays are still >> powered even when the system is off. I expect your system to be back to >> normal when you then plug it in. Until the next time you load the it87 >> driver and/or run "sensors -s", that is. Bingo! I don't know why I didn't think of this. I unplugged for about 45 minutes and now all appears back to normal. Now that I no longer think lm-sensors did some non-reversable voodoo on my motherboard, I'll play around with things more tonight after work (gotta go now). A quick note on one of your other questions: >>>Do you want to add these lines to /etc/modules automatically? (yes/NO)NO >> >> How come that the it87 driver is loaded if you did not add it to >> /etc/modules? The first time I ran sensors-detect I >> did << tell it to add the lines to /etc/modules. After that I experienced my POST problems on reboot. So then I ran sensors-detect a second time, to supply you with the info that I thought you'd need. It was the output of that second run that I attached to my post. During that second run I did >> not << tell sensors-detect to add the lines to /etc/modules because I knew they would (should?) already be there. Note that I was not able to boot to run sensors-detect that second time until some time later ... after figuring out the BIOS setup change I needed to get my computer bootable again. This also answers one of your other questions: >> How come that you use the lm90 driver while sensors-detect did not >> suggest you should do so? sensors-detect >> did << suggest that I use lm90 on the first run. On the second run it apparently did not (possibly because the lm90 module was already loaded from the first run?) I did not notice the inconsistancy in the sensors-detect output from the first and second runs until you pointed it out here. Unfortunately, I did not capture sensors-detect output the first time I ran it, so I cannot post that here to prove to you what I'm saying. I do take notes in a logbook whenever I'm twiddling with my computer however, and I can tell you what sensors-detect daid the firt run. Not exact words, but I can transcribe the jist of what was said from my handwritten notes pretty closely. Here goes: --- transcribe --- Driver 'lm90' should be inserter Bus SMBus nForce2 adapter at 4c40 Busdriver 'ic2-nforce2' I2C addresss 0x4c Chip Natl semiLM90 (confidence: 8) Driver 'eeprom' should be inserted Bus SMBus nforce2 adapter at 4c00 Busdriver 'ic2-nforce2' I2C address 0x50 Chip SPD EEPROM (confidence: 8) Driver 'it87' should be inserted ISA bus address 0x0290 Busdriver i2c-isa Chip ITE 8712F Super IO sensor (confidence: 9) If you have a choice, do you want ISA of I2C/SMBus?: ISA Automatically add these lines to /etc/modules?: YES #--- cut here --- # I2C adapter drivers i2c-nforce2 i2c-isa # I2C chip driver lm90 eeprom it87 #--- cut here --- --- transcribe --- After the above, I manually looked at /etc/modules and verified that the lines had automatically been added. I then ran "lsmod | grep it87" to see if they had been loaded. Evidently not, since lsmod did not know of them. So that's when I rebooted ... to give everything a chance to get settled down and loaded. It was that first reboot where I saw POST displaying a CPU temp of 246 and hanging. I tried the reboot multiple times to see if things would improve (they didn't). So on the next reboot I went into BIOS setup and started snooping around. Nothing looked out of the ordinary on a quick look, but I can't say I remember each and every normal BIOS setting on my computer. While in BIOS setup I changed the "Display hardware monitor in POST" setting to "disabled". Just as a test to see what might happen. After doing that I was able to boot normally. I rebooted again and went back into BIOS setup on re-enabled that POST hardware status display. It hung again. Disabled it and the hang was gone. That's when I posted my first message to this mailing list. Thank you for the power down suggestion. I should have known to try that. You would think I'd remember back to days long past when I got my Electrical Engineering degree. The mantra back then was: "It ain't working? Check the power. If it doesn't have it ... get it there. If it DOES have it, take it away for a while, then put it back and see what happens." This, combined with duct tape and WD-40 lube spray, will allow you to solve just about any problem! Jean Delvare wrote: > Hi David, > > On 2005-11-03, David Haertig wrote: > >>I'm a bit confused here. After installing lm-sensors where >>everything went smoothly, I rebooted. My computer then >>hung in POST!!! At the normal "Display PC hardware health" >>screen. It got so far as to display "CPU temp = 246 degrees >>celcius" (Yikes! - I doubt that's accurate) and then hung. >>100% repeatable. I then disabled "Show H/W Monitor in POST" >>in the BIOS and was able to boot successfully. The "sensors" >>program displays bogus numbers, but I couldn't care less >>about that right now. I more concerned that I'm now having >>a problem >>> in POST <<< ???!!! > > > My guess is that the POST hangs because of the high (and obviously > incorrect) CPU temp value. > > You *should* care about the fact that "sensors" displays bogus numbers. > Fixing these is likely to solve your problem. > > It is possible that the it87 driver and/or "sensors -s" reprogrammed > your IT8712F chip improperly, resulting in this incorrect CPU temp > value. We have yet to understand how it may have happened. I can't > remember of any similar report. > > It is also possible that this ain't related to lm_sensors. Just because > it sounds like a reasonable assumption doesn't make it true. What else > did you do before the problem occured? > > The first thing to try would be to unlug the system for a few minutes. > Don't just power it off. Unplug it. Most motherboard nowadays are still > powered even when the system is off. I expect your system to be back to > normal when you then plug it in. Until the next time you load the it87 > driver and/or run "sensors -s", that is. > > >>Technically I guess this is a mixed stable/unstable Debian >>system ... but mostly it's standard Sarge 3.1r0a The only >>things downloaded from unstable are the kernel, the kernel >>source, and gcc version 4.0 These were needed to support >>my nForce3 SATA and onboard ethernet. The nVidia display >>drivers were downloaded from nVidia's website and compiled >>locally. > > > It is highly discouraged to use a different compiler for third-party > drivers than the one which was used to compile the kernel in the first > place. Do you know which compiler was used for the kernel itself? > > Which kernel are you running? > > >>Module Size Used by >>nvidia 3699176 12 > > > Proprietary driver, huh? How may we be certain that this isn't the cause > of your problem? We can't. So you should stop using that module while > you are debugging this issue. > > >>it87 27712 0 >>eeprom 7280 0 >>lm90 13924 0 >>i2c_sensor 3264 3 it87,eeprom,lm90 >>i2c_isa 1888 0 >>i2c_nforce2 6752 0 >>i2c_core 21776 6 >> it87,eeprom,lm90,i2c_sensor,i2c_isa,i2c_nforce2 > > > How come that you use the lm90 driver while sensors-detect did not > suggest you should do so? > > >>Do you want to add these lines to /etc/modules automatically? (yes/NO)NO > > > How come that the it87 driver is loaded if you did not add it to > /etc/modules? Do the Debian init scripts load the hardware monitoring > modules? Do they run "sensors -s" at some point? If they do, you want > to disabled that for the moment, until we understand what's going on. > > What does the output of "sensors" look like? > > What does the "it87-*" or "it8712-*" section of your > /etc/sensors.conf file look like? > > >>it87: Found IT8712F chip at 0x290, revision 7 > > > The device was found and I don't see any problem related to it in the > logs. > > -- > Jean Delvare >
