From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2992437AbXCBN5R (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Mar 2007 08:57:17 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S2992445AbXCBN5Q (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Mar 2007 08:57:16 -0500 Received: from gprs189-60.eurotel.cz ([160.218.189.60]:41614 "EHLO amd.ucw.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2992437AbXCBN5P (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Mar 2007 08:57:15 -0500 Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 14:57:06 +0100 From: Pavel Machek To: Jean Delvare Cc: Dave Jones , Chuck Ebbert , Rudolf Marek , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel , lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] Could the k8temp driver be interfering with ACPI? Message-ID: <20070302135706.GE2156@elf.ucw.cz> References: <45D5EA88.7090300@redhat.com> <45D6DDCE.5050803@assembler.cz> <45D7461A.2040808@redhat.com> <20070218183805.5a4fd813.khali@linux-fr.org> <20070228213803.GA4877@ucw.cz> <20070301152655.f232db64.khali@linux-fr.org> <20070301174806.GA4979@redhat.com> <20070302122736.f14a7a22.khali@linux-fr.org> <20070302113158.GC2156@elf.ucw.cz> <20070302143720.cfd8afeb.khali@linux-fr.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070302143720.cfd8afeb.khali@linux-fr.org> X-Warning: Reading this can be dangerous to your mental health. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060126 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri 2007-03-02 14:37:20, Jean Delvare wrote: > On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 12:31:58 +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > My point (which you didn't quote) was that there is no correlation > > > between the SMBus being hidden and ACPI accessing the hardware > > > monitoring chip, contrary to what Pavel was suggesting. > > > > It may not be correlated with ACPI, but BIOS authors clearly want to > > keep you away from their SMBus controllers.... > > drivers/pci/quirks.c is full of things we do against the BIOS authors > intent. You don't plan to remove them all, do you? Notice how quirks.c is careful to name machines where given quirk is used. If you do whitelist "it is okay to do sensors accesses on this board", that is okay with me. But having quirk "on all future Intel chipsets, do foo" would be stupid. Enabling sensors blindly is pretty similar. > (And as a side note, this is really the board's owner SMBus controller. > The hardware doesn't belong to the BIOS author.) True. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html