At Fri, 23 Mar 2007 15:22:46 -0400,
Chuck Ebbert wrote:
>
> Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > At Tue, 20 Mar 2007 17:08:48 +0100,
> > I wrote:
> >> At Tue, 20 Mar 2007 12:05:07 -0400,
> >>>
> >>> http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/12/3/9
> >> This is a different problem.
> >> A known workaround is to provide probe_m
Takashi Iwai wrote:
> At Tue, 20 Mar 2007 17:08:48 +0100,
> I wrote:
>> At Tue, 20 Mar 2007 12:05:07 -0400,
>>>
>>> http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/12/3/9
>> This is a different problem.
>> A known workaround is to provide probe_mask=1 module option.
>
> BTW, does this happen on the latest linus git tre
At Tue, 20 Mar 2007 12:32:50 -0400,
Chuck Ebbert wrote:
>
> Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > At Tue, 20 Mar 2007 17:08:48 +0100,
> > I wrote:
> >> At Tue, 20 Mar 2007 12:05:07 -0400,
> >> Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> >>> Takashi Iwai wrote:
> X60/T60 is known to be often broken regarding the communication
>
Takashi Iwai wrote:
> At Tue, 20 Mar 2007 17:08:48 +0100,
> I wrote:
>> At Tue, 20 Mar 2007 12:05:07 -0400,
>> Chuck Ebbert wrote:
>>> Takashi Iwai wrote:
X60/T60 is known to be often broken regarding the communication
between the controller and the codec chip. When this kind of thing
>>
At Tue, 20 Mar 2007 17:08:48 +0100,
I wrote:
>
> At Tue, 20 Mar 2007 12:05:07 -0400,
> Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> >
> > Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > >
> > > X60/T60 is known to be often broken regarding the communication
> > > between the controller and the codec chip. When this kind of thing
> > > happe
At Tue, 20 Mar 2007 12:05:07 -0400,
Chuck Ebbert wrote:
>
> Takashi Iwai wrote:
> >
> > X60/T60 is known to be often broken regarding the communication
> > between the controller and the codec chip. When this kind of thing
> > happens, the driver tries to switch to a single-shot I/O without usin
Takashi Iwai wrote:
>
> X60/T60 is known to be often broken regarding the communication
> between the controller and the codec chip. When this kind of thing
> happens, the driver tries to switch to a single-shot I/O without using
> ring-buffers and IRQs, and even in such a mode, the communication
At Tue, 20 Mar 2007 14:22:03 +0100,
Pavel Machek wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> > > I got this nastinness in my syslog... perhaps HDA intel takes too long
> > > to play with its hardware? Or should we just kill the softlockup
> > > watchdog since Linux is not realtime system, yet?
> >
> > X60/T60 is known t
Hi!
> > I got this nastinness in my syslog... perhaps HDA intel takes too long
> > to play with its hardware? Or should we just kill the softlockup
> > watchdog since Linux is not realtime system, yet?
>
> X60/T60 is known to be often broken regarding the communication
> between the controller an
At Tue, 20 Mar 2007 13:32:53 +0100,
Pavel Machek wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> I got this nastinness in my syslog... perhaps HDA intel takes too long
> to play with its hardware? Or should we just kill the softlockup
> watchdog since Linux is not realtime system, yet?
X60/T60 is known to be often broken re
Hi!
I got this nastinness in my syslog... perhaps HDA intel takes too long
to play with its hardware? Or should we just kill the softlockup
watchdog since Linux is not realtime system, yet?
Pavel
HDA Intel :00:1b.0: freeze
BUG:
11 matches
Mail list logo