On 2/20/07, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, Feb 18, 2007 at 06:38:05PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote: > ACPI is broken here, not k8temp, so let's fix ACPI instead. ACPI > doesn't conflict with only k8temp, but with virtually all hardware > monitoring drivers, all I2C/SMBus drivers, and probably other types of > drivers too. We just can't restrict or blacklist all these drivers > because ACPI misbehaves. No, the simple fact of the matter is that if you're running on an ACPI platform you need to change some of your assumptions. ACPI owns the hardware. The OS doesn't. To an extent this has always been true on laptops and servers /anyway/ - the BIOS is free to have a wide variety of SMM insanity that invalidates basic assumptions like "If I hold this lock, nothing can interrupt me between this write and this read". That's simply not true. So this isn't about fixing ACPI. It's about trying to find a mechanism that allows ACPI and raw hardware drivers to coexist, which is made somewhat harder by it not being a situation that the platform designers have considered in the slightest.
Motherboard vendors usually provide tools for $(TheOtherOS) that can read from all thermal / fan / voltage / whatever sensors, so I guess it's possible to make the ACPI driver and the "raw" one play nice with each other[1]. Luca [1] Unless their solution is "poke at the hardware and hope that ACPI doesn't blow up", that is. - 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
