------------ origen02 ------------ http://validation.linaro.org/lava-server/scheduler/job/35250
When trying to boot the test image, it went into a panic. I went onto the board and booted it both into master and test images and it was fine. So it looks like it was a random glitch. Back online to re-test.
------------ origen09 ------------ http://validation.linaro.org/lava-server/scheduler/job/35134
Dropped into initramfs on test image boot. Booted up test image, and it sat for ages doing recovery on mmcblk0p6, which is testrootfs. Let it complete fsck, then did a reboot. Still recording errors, so replaced sd card with new image. Looks like one of the rare sd card failures. A health check finding a real problem. :)
------------ panda04 ------------ http://validation.linaro.org/lava-server/scheduler/job/35095
Android glitch of some sort - home screen problem. Put back online to retest.
-------------------- snowball06/08 -------------------- http://192.168.1.10/lava-server/scheduler/job/35179
eth0 failed to come up. We see this a lot with snowballs. Perhaps there's a known bug in the master image we use (12.02)?
Thanks
Dave
Dave Pigott dave.pigott@linaro.org writes:
origen02
http://validation.linaro.org/lava-server/scheduler/job/35250
When trying to boot the test image, it went into a panic. I went onto the board and booted it both into master and test images and it was fine. So it looks like it was a random glitch. Back online to re-test.
Should keep an eye on origens I guess -- maybe there is a better test kernel to use. But probably not, on current failure rates.
origen09
http://validation.linaro.org/lava-server/scheduler/job/35134
Dropped into initramfs on test image boot. Booted up test image, and it sat for ages doing recovery on mmcblk0p6, which is testrootfs. Let it complete fsck, then did a reboot. Still recording errors, so replaced sd card with new image. Looks like one of the rare sd card failures. A health check finding a real problem. :)
\o/ -- what brand of card, fwiw?
snowball06/08
http://192.168.1.10/lava-server/scheduler/job/35179
eth0 failed to come up. We see this a lot with snowballs.
"We see this a lot" -- do we have actual numbers? To everyone: assuming not, what can we do to get some?
Perhaps there's a known bug in the master image we use (12.02)?
Who would we ask about that? Lee?
Cheers, mwh
+Lee/Ricardo/Riku/Fathi
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 2:53 AM, Michael Hudson-Doyle michael.hudson@linaro.org wrote:
Dave Pigott dave.pigott@linaro.org writes:
origen02
http://validation.linaro.org/lava-server/scheduler/job/35250
When trying to boot the test image, it went into a panic. I went onto the board and booted it both into master and test images and it was fine. So it looks like it was a random glitch. Back online to re-test.
Should keep an eye on origens I guess -- maybe there is a better test kernel to use. But probably not, on current failure rates.
origen09
http://validation.linaro.org/lava-server/scheduler/job/35134
Dropped into initramfs on test image boot. Booted up test image, and it sat for ages doing recovery on mmcblk0p6, which is testrootfs. Let it complete fsck, then did a reboot. Still recording errors, so replaced sd card with new image. Looks like one of the rare sd card failures. A health check finding a real problem. :)
\o/ -- what brand of card, fwiw?
snowball06/08
http://192.168.1.10/lava-server/scheduler/job/35179
eth0 failed to come up. We see this a lot with snowballs.
"We see this a lot" -- do we have actual numbers? To everyone: assuming not, what can we do to get some?
Perhaps there's a known bug in the master image we use (12.02)?
I would think 12.02 is probably a just too old kernel for anyone to easily remember or to be willing to work on, but I am not sure if they have anything much newer anyway :) ...
Who would we ask about that? Lee?
Please check with Lee and Ricardo/Riku if there is a better, more recent hwpack that supports what we for basic LAVA (e.g. eth, sdcard, usb for android, serial)...
Cheers, mwh
linaro-validation mailing list linaro-validation@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-validation
On 10/15/2012 01:04 PM, Alexander Sack wrote:
snowball06/08
http://192.168.1.10/lava-server/scheduler/job/35179
eth0 failed to come up. We see this a lot with snowballs.
"We see this a lot" -- do we have actual numbers? To everyone: assuming not, what can we do to get some?
I keep the log of health check failures at:
https://docs.google.com/a/linaro.org/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AnxpY5uv-BlNdG9zYT...
In the past 5 days its happened 4 times on snowball.
Prior to that. In a span of 25 health failures snowball accounted for 8 of the failures. Half of those failures look like this problem. So this snowball issue is accounting for around 16% of our health check failures.
Perhaps there's a known bug in the master image we use (12.02)?
I would think 12.02 is probably a just too old kernel for anyone to easily remember or to be willing to work on, but I am not sure if they have anything much newer anyway:) ...
Time to update master images I suspect. If we had sd mux this wouldn't be an issue. :)
Dave
Sent from my Aldis Lamp
On 15 Oct 2012, at 19:57, Andy Doan andy.doan@linaro.org wrote:
On 10/15/2012 01:04 PM, Alexander Sack wrote:
snowball06/08
http://192.168.1.10/lava-server/scheduler/job/35179
eth0 failed to come up. We see this a lot with snowballs.
"We see this a lot" -- do we have actual numbers? To everyone: assuming not, what can we do to get some?
I keep the log of health check failures at:
https://docs.google.com/a/linaro.org/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AnxpY5uv-BlNdG9zYT...
In the past 5 days its happened 4 times on snowball.
Prior to that. In a span of 25 health failures snowball accounted for 8 of the failures. Half of those failures look like this problem. So this snowball issue is accounting for around 16% of our health check failures.
Perhaps there's a known bug in the master image we use (12.02)?
I would think 12.02 is probably a just too old kernel for anyone to easily remember or to be willing to work on, but I am not sure if they have anything much newer anyway:) ...
linaro-validation mailing list linaro-validation@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-validation
On Mon, 15 Oct 2012, Andy Doan wrote:
On 10/15/2012 01:04 PM, Alexander Sack wrote:
snowball06/08
http://192.168.1.10/lava-server/scheduler/job/35179
eth0 failed to come up. We see this a lot with snowballs.
"We see this a lot" -- do we have actual numbers? To everyone: assuming not, what can we do to get some?
I keep the log of health check failures at:
https://docs.google.com/a/linaro.org/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AnxpY5uv-BlNdG9zYT...
In the past 5 days its happened 4 times on snowball.
Prior to that. In a span of 25 health failures snowball accounted for 8 of the failures. Half of those failures look like this problem. So this snowball issue is accounting for around 16% of our health check failures.
So it works sometimes, but not others? Sounds like a h/w bug.
Are there logs?
On 10/16/2012 02:26 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2012, Andy Doan wrote:
On 10/15/2012 01:04 PM, Alexander Sack wrote:
> -------------------- > snowball06/08 > -------------------- > http://192.168.1.10/lava-server/scheduler/job/35179 > > eth0 failed to come up. We see this a lot with snowballs.
"We see this a lot" -- do we have actual numbers? To everyone: assuming not, what can we do to get some?
I keep the log of health check failures at:
https://docs.google.com/a/linaro.org/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AnxpY5uv-BlNdG9zYT...
In the past 5 days its happened 4 times on snowball.
Prior to that. In a span of 25 health failures snowball accounted for 8 of the failures. Half of those failures look like this problem. So this snowball issue is accounting for around 16% of our health check failures.
So it works sometimes, but not others? Sounds like a h/w bug.
That's interesting. It happens most often, but is not limited to snowball06. I also have records of this failure on:
snowball01, snowball03, snowball08
But 6 of the last 8 failures of this type were snowball06
Are there logs?
Here's the normal way it fails:
http://validation.linaro.org/lava-server/scheduler/job/35517/log_file
+anmar
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Andy Doan andy.doan@linaro.org wrote:
On 10/16/2012 02:26 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2012, Andy Doan wrote:
On 10/15/2012 01:04 PM, Alexander Sack wrote:
>> >> -------------------- >> snowball06/08 >> -------------------- >> http://192.168.1.10/lava-server/scheduler/job/35179 >> >> eth0 failed to come up. We see this a lot with snowballs.
"We see this a lot" -- do we have actual numbers? To everyone: assuming not, what can we do to get some?
I keep the log of health check failures at:
https://docs.google.com/a/linaro.org/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AnxpY5uv-BlNdG9zYT...
In the past 5 days its happened 4 times on snowball.
Prior to that. In a span of 25 health failures snowball accounted for 8 of the failures. Half of those failures look like this problem. So this snowball issue is accounting for around 16% of our health check failures.
So it works sometimes, but not others? Sounds like a h/w bug.
could be hwbug, but driver bugs can also give undeterministic behaviour in full system stacks from what i experience (racy things etc.). Since we are in software business I feel we should look closer at the software side before disregarding something as hwbug ...
How can we nail the source of this? Maybe we have a kernel that we have the guts feeling is better than the 12.02 and could give that a stress test try?
That's interesting. It happens most often, but is not limited to snowball06. I also have records of this failure on:
snowball01, snowball03, snowball08
But 6 of the last 8 failures of this type were snowball06
Are there logs?
Here's the normal way it fails:
http://validation.linaro.org/lava-server/scheduler/job/35517/log_file
On 16 Oct 2012, at 17:22, Alexander Sack asac@linaro.org wrote:
+anmar
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Andy Doan andy.doan@linaro.org wrote:
On 10/16/2012 02:26 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2012, Andy Doan wrote:
On 10/15/2012 01:04 PM, Alexander Sack wrote:
>>> >>> -------------------- >>> snowball06/08 >>> -------------------- >>> http://192.168.1.10/lava-server/scheduler/job/35179 >>> >>> eth0 failed to come up. We see this a lot with snowballs. > > > "We see this a lot" -- do we have actual numbers? To everyone: > assuming > not, what can we do to get some?
I keep the log of health check failures at:
https://docs.google.com/a/linaro.org/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AnxpY5uv-BlNdG9zYT...
In the past 5 days its happened 4 times on snowball.
Prior to that. In a span of 25 health failures snowball accounted for 8 of the failures. Half of those failures look like this problem. So this snowball issue is accounting for around 16% of our health check failures.
So it works sometimes, but not others? Sounds like a h/w bug.
could be hwbug, but driver bugs can also give undeterministic behaviour in full system stacks from what i experience (racy things etc.). Since we are in software business I feel we should look closer at the software side before disregarding something as hwbug ...
How can we nail the source of this? Maybe we have a kernel that we have the guts feeling is better than the 12.02 and could give that a stress test try?
Idea for a plan: We take snowball06 and run loop tests on 12.{03-09} for a few days and see if any one seems to behave better than the others?
Dave
sounds good. can we also pick one of the boards that we believe is good/better and do the same there?
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Dave Pigott dave.pigott@linaro.org wrote:
On 16 Oct 2012, at 17:22, Alexander Sack asac@linaro.org wrote:
+anmar
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Andy Doan andy.doan@linaro.org wrote:
On 10/16/2012 02:26 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2012, Andy Doan wrote:
On 10/15/2012 01:04 PM, Alexander Sack wrote:
>>>> >>>> -------------------- >>>> snowball06/08 >>>> -------------------- >>>> http://192.168.1.10/lava-server/scheduler/job/35179 >>>> >>>> eth0 failed to come up. We see this a lot with snowballs. >> >> >> "We see this a lot" -- do we have actual numbers? To everyone: >> assuming >> not, what can we do to get some?
I keep the log of health check failures at:
https://docs.google.com/a/linaro.org/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AnxpY5uv-BlNdG9zYT...
In the past 5 days its happened 4 times on snowball.
Prior to that. In a span of 25 health failures snowball accounted for 8 of the failures. Half of those failures look like this problem. So this snowball issue is accounting for around 16% of our health check failures.
So it works sometimes, but not others? Sounds like a h/w bug.
could be hwbug, but driver bugs can also give undeterministic behaviour in full system stacks from what i experience (racy things etc.). Since we are in software business I feel we should look closer at the software side before disregarding something as hwbug ...
How can we nail the source of this? Maybe we have a kernel that we have the guts feeling is better than the 12.02 and could give that a stress test try?
Idea for a plan: We take snowball06 and run loop tests on 12.{03-09} for a few days and see if any one seems to behave better than the others?
Dave
Yep. Don't see why not. Andy, from your stats, which snowball would you say is best/better behaved?
I think this should be entered as a BP or bug.
Thanks
Dave
On 16 Oct 2012, at 18:54, Alexander Sack asac@linaro.org wrote:
sounds good. can we also pick one of the boards that we believe is good/better and do the same there?
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Dave Pigott dave.pigott@linaro.org wrote:
On 16 Oct 2012, at 17:22, Alexander Sack asac@linaro.org wrote:
+anmar
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Andy Doan andy.doan@linaro.org wrote:
On 10/16/2012 02:26 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2012, Andy Doan wrote:
On 10/15/2012 01:04 PM, Alexander Sack wrote: >>>>> >>>>> -------------------- >>>>> snowball06/08 >>>>> -------------------- >>>>> http://192.168.1.10/lava-server/scheduler/job/35179 >>>>> >>>>> eth0 failed to come up. We see this a lot with snowballs. >>> >>> >>> "We see this a lot" -- do we have actual numbers? To everyone: >>> assuming >>> not, what can we do to get some?
I keep the log of health check failures at:
https://docs.google.com/a/linaro.org/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AnxpY5uv-BlNdG9zYT...
In the past 5 days its happened 4 times on snowball.
Prior to that. In a span of 25 health failures snowball accounted for 8 of the failures. Half of those failures look like this problem. So this snowball issue is accounting for around 16% of our health check failures.
So it works sometimes, but not others? Sounds like a h/w bug.
could be hwbug, but driver bugs can also give undeterministic behaviour in full system stacks from what i experience (racy things etc.). Since we are in software business I feel we should look closer at the software side before disregarding something as hwbug ...
How can we nail the source of this? Maybe we have a kernel that we have the guts feeling is better than the 12.02 and could give that a stress test try?
Idea for a plan: We take snowball06 and run loop tests on 12.{03-09} for a few days and see if any one seems to behave better than the others?
Dave
-- Alexander Sack Technical Director, Linaro Platform Teams http://www.linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs http://twitter.com/#%21/linaroorg - http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 7:01 PM, Andy Doan andy.doan@linaro.org wrote:
On 10/17/2012 02:23 AM, Dave Pigott wrote:
Yep. Don't see why not. Andy, from your stats, which snowball would you say is best/better behaved?
snowball02 seems to not have had this issue.
great. lets shoot for a brute force stress race at some weekend on these to see if our feeling reflects reality...
Snowball06 was continually failing, so I took a closer look, and it seems to have some emmc errors, along with some problems with the sd card. I reflashed the sd card, and eth0 seems to be a lot more stable. Maybe we need to re-riff every board? Lee - is there any chance that an outdated or corrupt emmc could cause use these problems?
Dave
On 17 Oct 2012, at 18:02, Alexander Sack asac@linaro.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 7:01 PM, Andy Doan andy.doan@linaro.org wrote:
On 10/17/2012 02:23 AM, Dave Pigott wrote:
Yep. Don't see why not. Andy, from your stats, which snowball would you say is best/better behaved?
snowball02 seems to not have had this issue.
great. lets shoot for a brute force stress race at some weekend on these to see if our feeling reflects reality...
-- Alexander Sack Technical Director, Linaro Platform Teams http://www.linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs http://twitter.com/#%21/linaroorg - http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog
And good ol' snowball06 just did it again.
Dave
On 16 Oct 2012, at 18:54, Alexander Sack asac@linaro.org wrote:
sounds good. can we also pick one of the boards that we believe is good/better and do the same there?
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Dave Pigott dave.pigott@linaro.org wrote:
On 16 Oct 2012, at 17:22, Alexander Sack asac@linaro.org wrote:
+anmar
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Andy Doan andy.doan@linaro.org wrote:
On 10/16/2012 02:26 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2012, Andy Doan wrote:
On 10/15/2012 01:04 PM, Alexander Sack wrote: >>>>> >>>>> -------------------- >>>>> snowball06/08 >>>>> -------------------- >>>>> http://192.168.1.10/lava-server/scheduler/job/35179 >>>>> >>>>> eth0 failed to come up. We see this a lot with snowballs. >>> >>> >>> "We see this a lot" -- do we have actual numbers? To everyone: >>> assuming >>> not, what can we do to get some?
I keep the log of health check failures at:
https://docs.google.com/a/linaro.org/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AnxpY5uv-BlNdG9zYT...
In the past 5 days its happened 4 times on snowball.
Prior to that. In a span of 25 health failures snowball accounted for 8 of the failures. Half of those failures look like this problem. So this snowball issue is accounting for around 16% of our health check failures.
So it works sometimes, but not others? Sounds like a h/w bug.
could be hwbug, but driver bugs can also give undeterministic behaviour in full system stacks from what i experience (racy things etc.). Since we are in software business I feel we should look closer at the software side before disregarding something as hwbug ...
How can we nail the source of this? Maybe we have a kernel that we have the guts feeling is better than the 12.02 and could give that a stress test try?
Idea for a plan: We take snowball06 and run loop tests on 12.{03-09} for a few days and see if any one seems to behave better than the others?
Dave
-- Alexander Sack Technical Director, Linaro Platform Teams http://www.linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs http://twitter.com/#%21/linaroorg - http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog
And good ol' snowball06 just did it again.
If some boards are doing it and some aren't with the same software, it really does sound like a h/w issue to me.
sounds good. can we also pick one of the boards that we believe is good/better and do the same there?
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Dave Pigott dave.pigott@linaro.org wrote:
On 16 Oct 2012, at 17:22, Alexander Sack asac@linaro.org wrote:
+anmar
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Andy Doan andy.doan@linaro.org wrote:
On 10/16/2012 02:26 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2012, Andy Doan wrote:
> On 10/15/2012 01:04 PM, Alexander Sack wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> -------------------- >>>>>> snowball06/08 >>>>>> -------------------- >>>>>> http://192.168.1.10/lava-server/scheduler/job/35179 >>>>>> >>>>>> eth0 failed to come up. We see this a lot with snowballs. >>>> >>>> >>>> "We see this a lot" -- do we have actual numbers? To everyone: >>>> assuming >>>> not, what can we do to get some? > > > I keep the log of health check failures at: > > > > https://docs.google.com/a/linaro.org/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AnxpY5uv-BlNdG9zYT... > > In the past 5 days its happened 4 times on snowball. > > Prior to that. In a span of 25 health failures snowball accounted > for 8 of the failures. Half of those failures look like this > problem. So this snowball issue is accounting for around 16% of our > health check failures.
So it works sometimes, but not others? Sounds like a h/w bug.
could be hwbug, but driver bugs can also give undeterministic behaviour in full system stacks from what i experience (racy things etc.). Since we are in software business I feel we should look closer at the software side before disregarding something as hwbug ...
How can we nail the source of this? Maybe we have a kernel that we have the guts feeling is better than the 12.02 and could give that a stress test try?
Idea for a plan: We take snowball06 and run loop tests on 12.{03-09} for a few days and see if any one seems to behave better than the others?
Dave
-- Alexander Sack Technical Director, Linaro Platform Teams http://www.linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs http://twitter.com/#%21/linaroorg - http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog
On Tue, 16 Oct 2012, Andy Doan wrote:
On 10/16/2012 02:26 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2012, Andy Doan wrote:
On 10/15/2012 01:04 PM, Alexander Sack wrote:
>>-------------------- >>snowball06/08 >>-------------------- >>http://192.168.1.10/lava-server/scheduler/job/35179 >> >>eth0 failed to come up. We see this a lot with snowballs.
"We see this a lot" -- do we have actual numbers? To everyone: assuming not, what can we do to get some?
I keep the log of health check failures at:
https://docs.google.com/a/linaro.org/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AnxpY5uv-BlNdG9zYT...
In the past 5 days its happened 4 times on snowball.
Prior to that. In a span of 25 health failures snowball accounted for 8 of the failures. Half of those failures look like this problem. So this snowball issue is accounting for around 16% of our health check failures.
So it works sometimes, but not others? Sounds like a h/w bug.
That's interesting. It happens most often, but is not limited to snowball06. I also have records of this failure on:
snowball01, snowball03, snowball08
But 6 of the last 8 failures of this type were snowball06
Are there logs?
Here's the normal way it fails:
http://validation.linaro.org/lava-server/scheduler/job/35517/log_file
This looks like an issue: smsc911x smsc911x.0: (unregistered net_device): smsc911x_request_resources: Failed to get regulator 'vddvario'
I would start here if I were you.
Do the passed attempts also have this error message in the log?
Kind regards, Lee
On 10/22/2012 04:02 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
This looks like an issue: smsc911x smsc911x.0: (unregistered net_device): smsc911x_request_resources: Failed to get regulator 'vddvario'
I would start here if I were you.
Do the passed attempts also have this error message in the log?
You must be pretty close to the spot in code. Here's the bad log:
smsc911x: Driver version 2008-10-21 smsc911x smsc911x.0: (unregistered net_device): smsc911x_request_resources: Failed to get regulator 'vddvario' PPP generic driver version 2.4.2
Here's the good log:
smsc911x: Driver version 2008-10-21 smsc911x smsc911x.0: (unregistered net_device): smsc911x_request_resources: Failed to get regulator 'vddvario' smsc911x-mdio: probed
I haven't pulled up the code, but it looks like the probe function is the spot.
FYI - snowball06 failed once over the weekend, so the new master image on the SD card may not have helped as much as we originally thought it would.
Linus,
Have you seen this before?
Failed networking, but only on some boards.
You must be pretty close to the spot in code. Here's the bad log:
smsc911x: Driver version 2008-10-21 smsc911x smsc911x.0: (unregistered net_device): smsc911x_request_resources: Failed to get regulator 'vddvario' PPP generic driver version 2.4.2
Here's the good log:
smsc911x: Driver version 2008-10-21 smsc911x smsc911x.0: (unregistered net_device): smsc911x_request_resources: Failed to get regulator 'vddvario' smsc911x-mdio: probed
I haven't pulled up the code, but it looks like the probe function is the spot.
FYI - snowball06 failed once over the weekend, so the new master image on the SD card may not have helped as much as we originally thought it would.
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Lee Jones lee.jones@linaro.org wrote:
Linus,
Have you seen this before?
Failed networking, but only on some boards.
Never seen but I'm not using Snowball much. Hardware lifespan is not exactly my kind of stuff...
Maybe you should page Robert Marklund, he worked a lot on the Snowball SMSC.
Linus
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012, Lee Jones wrote:
Linus,
Have you seen this before?
Failed networking, but only on some boards.
Maybe you should page Robert Marklund, he worked a lot on the Snowball SMSC.
Linus
Good plan.
Robert, what say you?
You must be pretty close to the spot in code. Here's the bad log:
smsc911x: Driver version 2008-10-21 smsc911x smsc911x.0: (unregistered net_device): smsc911x_request_resources: Failed to get regulator 'vddvario' PPP generic driver version 2.4.2
Here's the good log:
smsc911x: Driver version 2008-10-21 smsc911x smsc911x.0: (unregistered net_device): smsc911x_request_resources: Failed to get regulator 'vddvario' smsc911x-mdio: probed
I haven't pulled up the code, but it looks like the probe function is the spot.
FYI - snowball06 failed once over the weekend, so the new master image on the SD card may not have helped as much as we originally thought it would.
-- Lee Jones Linaro ST-Ericsson Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
The probe will fail if we can't get the regulators. So we have a dummy regulator for one of them don’t remember which.
So both logs in this case should fail.
/R
-----Original Message----- From: Lee Jones [mailto:lee.jones@linaro.org] Sent: den 23 oktober 2012 09:24 To: Andy Doan; linus.walleij@linaro.org; Robert MARKLUND Cc: Alexander Sack; Michael Hudson-Doyle; Ricardo Salveti; Riku Voipio; Linaro Validation Subject: Re: [Linaro-validation] Health check failures
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012, Lee Jones wrote:
Linus,
Have you seen this before?
Failed networking, but only on some boards.
Maybe you should page Robert Marklund, he worked a lot on the Snowball SMSC.
Linus
Good plan.
Robert, what say you?
You must be pretty close to the spot in code. Here's the bad log:
smsc911x: Driver version 2008-10-21 smsc911x smsc911x.0: (unregistered net_device): smsc911x_request_resources: Failed to get regulator 'vddvario' PPP generic driver version 2.4.2
Here's the good log:
smsc911x: Driver version 2008-10-21 smsc911x smsc911x.0: (unregistered net_device): smsc911x_request_resources: Failed to get regulator 'vddvario' smsc911x-mdio: probed
I haven't pulled up the code, but it looks like the probe function is the spot.
FYI - snowball06 failed once over the weekend, so the new master image on the SD card may not have helped as much as we originally thought it would.
-- Lee Jones Linaro ST-Ericsson Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
-- Lee Jones Linaro ST-Ericsson Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
linaro-validation@lists.linaro.org
-
Alexander Sack -
Andy Doan -
Dave Pigott -
Lee Jones -
Linus Walleij -
Michael Hudson-Doyle -
Robert MARKLUND