From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753754AbXDOUbx (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Apr 2007 16:31:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753745AbXDOUbw (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Apr 2007 16:31:52 -0400 Received: from atlrel7.hp.com ([156.153.255.213]:44584 "EHLO atlrel7.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753726AbXDOUbv (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Apr 2007 16:31:51 -0400 From: Bjorn Helgaas To: Jean Delvare Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] Could the k8temp driver be interfering with ACPI? Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 14:31:41 -0600 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 Cc: Pavel Machek , Chuck Ebbert , Rudolf Marek , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel , lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org References: <45D5EA88.7090300@redhat.com> <200704131459.45867.bjorn.helgaas@hp.com> <20070415114159.05026483@hyperion.delvare> In-Reply-To: <20070415114159.05026483@hyperion.delvare> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200704151431.41503.bjorn.helgaas@hp.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sunday 15 April 2007 03:41, Jean Delvare wrote: > On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 14:59:45 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > Of course, there are always BIOS defects. But if we could make a > > case that a BIOS that doesn't declare the resources used by the AML > > is defective, we could add quirks to reserve the undeclared resources. > > Only realistic if the list of systems needing a quirk is small. Do you > think that would be the case? I don't know. I confess that I don't clearly understand the problem yet. It sounds like the sensor drivers want to talk to hardware that ACPI methods might also use. But I missed the details, such as the specific devices in question, which ports they use, how they are described in ACPI, which AML methods use those ports, and which non-ACPI drivers also use them. It also sounds like the non-ACPI drivers provide much more functionality than ACPI exposes. I'd like to understand this, too, because an obvious way to solve the problem would be to drop the non-ACPI drivers. Is this extra functionality available on Windows? If so, do we know whether Windows uses non-ACPI drivers or whether they have some smarter way to use ACPI? In the long run, I think the easiest, most reliable route would be to use the system in a similar way. Then we'd be doing things the way the manufacturer intended and we'd take advantage of all the Windows- focused firmware testing. Bjorn