Am 25.08.2007 09:55 schrieb Paul Rolland: > On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 00:28:09 -0400 > Dave Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 08:30:00PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: >> >> > > -<6>rtc_cmos 00:03: rtc core: registered rtc_cmos as rtc0 >> > > -<4>rtc_cmos: probe of 00:03 failed with error -16 >> > >> > I wonder if that was supposed to happen. It's also happening in >> > 2.6.23-rc3 base. >> >> EBUSY. I've seen this happen when you have both CONFIG_RTC and >> CONFIG_RTC_DRV_CMOS set. > > This one is becoming quite worth an entry in a FAQ, it pops up one every > month ;) > There was a discussion about preventing both being set at the same time > when configuring, but I don't remember how it ends... I must have missed that discussion. I have: CONFIG_RTC=y CONFIG_RTC_DRV_CMOS=m because both of these options claim in their help texts that you should select them if you want to access the PC RTC. -- Tilman Schmidt E-Mail: [email protected] Bonn, Germany Diese Nachricht besteht zu 100% aus wiederverwerteten Bits. Ungeöffnet mindestens haltbar bis: (siehe Rückseite)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
- References:
- 2.6.23-rc3-mm1
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.23-rc3-mm1
- From: Tilman Schmidt <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.23-rc3-mm1
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.23-rc3-mm1
- From: Tilman Schmidt <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.23-rc3-mm1
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.23-rc3-mm1
- From: Dave Jones <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.23-rc3-mm1
- From: Paul Rolland <[email protected]>
- 2.6.23-rc3-mm1
- Prev by Date: Re: 2.6.23-rc3-mm1
- Next by Date: Re: 2.6.23-rc3-mm1
- Previous by thread: Re: 2.6.23-rc3-mm1
- Next by thread: Clock trouble retest results with 2.6.23-rc4-mm1 (was: 2.6.23-rc3-mm1)
- Index(es):
 |