On Thu, 2006-06-29 at 12:38 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Wednesday 28 June 2006 19:13, Shaohua Li wrote: > > On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 10:55 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > > On Tuesday 27 June 2006 19:02, Shaohua Li wrote: > > > > Or could we take this way, merge both patches (both patches are good to > > > > me), which should be safer. Anyway, it doesn't make sense to export root > > > > bridge to pnp layer to me. > > > > > > One reason I don't like the blacklist is because it just papers over > > > the problem without leaving a clue about how to really solve it. > > > For example, if PNP is enhanced later to comprehend resource producers, > > > we won't know to go back and remove things from the blacklist. > > So lets have a note there. It (no blacklist) is meaningful to have all > > ACPI devices handled by PNP layer, but currently not. We don't expect a > > PNP driver for root bridge. And we will take risk of buggy BIOS. > > Assuming we apply the first patch, a blacklist entry is neither > necessary (because the PNPACPI producer check covers it) nor > sufficient (because non-PNP0A03 devices may also have producer > resources). > > It's true that blacklisting PNP0A03 will prevent problems if a BIOS > has buggy _CRS data for such a device. But it will also hide Linux > problems like the one I fixed here: > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-acpi&m=113890268621542&w=2 > > So I think we should not blacklist PNP0A03 until we discover a specific > problem that requires that. Looks you just want it to find bug :). If you insist, I'm fine with your proposal. Thanks, SHaohua - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
