Hi Juergen, On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 21:28:02 +0200, Juergen Bausa wrote: > > > Von: Jean Delvare <khali at linux-fr.org> > > Gesendet: 17.10.07 23:32:28 > > > > On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 12:43:16 -0700, Juerg Haefliger wrote: > > > On 10/17/07, Juergen Bausa <Juergen.Bausa at web.de> wrote: > > > > Here is what I found in /var/log: > > > > > > > > /var/log/messages:Oct 17 09:16:00 lisa kernel: i2c_adapter i2c-0: nForce2 SMBus adapter at 0x4c00 > > > > /var/log/messages:Oct 17 09:16:00 lisa kernel: i2c_adapter i2c-1: nForce2 SMBus adapter at 0x4c40 > > > > /var/log/messages:Oct 17 09:16:00 lisa kernel: i2c_adapter i2c-0: Found a DME1737 chip at 0x2e (rev 0x8a) > > > > > > > > /var/log/debug:Oct 17 09:16:00 lisa kernel: i2c_adapter i2c-0: SMBus Timeout! (0x10) > > > > /var/log/debug:Oct 17 09:16:00 lisa kernel: i2c_adapter i2c-0: SMBus Timeout! (0x10) > > > > /var/log/debug:Oct 17 09:16:00 lisa kernel: i2c_adapter i2c-1: SMBus Timeout! (0x10) > > > > > > These are all errors that occur when the drivers (i2c and dme1737) get > > > loaded. The dme1737 is not printing any errors so they are not > > > transactions initiated by the dme1737. The 0x10 means "SMBus Device > > > Address Not Acknowledged" according to the ACPI spec. Not sure how > > > this can happen... Signal integrity problems on the board level? In > > > any case, these errors should probably be retried. Not sure at what > > > level though. Jean? > > > > These are not errors at all, it's only i2c-core probing at work. The > > dme1737 driver specifies three possible addresses (0x2c, 0x2d, 0x2e), > > the probes at 0x2c and 0x2d on bus 0 fail, these are the first two > > "SMBus Timeout!" messages above. Then the probe at 0x2e succeeds. Then > > i2c-core goes on with bus 1. There should have been 3 failing probes > > there, but surprisingly, there's only one "SMBus Timeout!" for bus 1. I > > can't explain it. > > I greped the mesages. Maybe, there was a 'message repeated xx times' in > the log, that wasnt displayed. Ah, OK, that explains it. > lisa:/home/jba# i2cdetect -y 0 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 a b c d e f > 00: -- -- -- -- -- 08 -- -- -- -- 0d -- -- > 10: -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- > 20: -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- UU -- > 30: 30 31 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- > 40: -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- > 50: 50 51 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- > 60: -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- > 70: -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Aha. The "0d" is suspicious, I've never seen any chip using this address. I really wonder what it is. The rest is standard. -- Jean Delvare
