Hi! > > > > Well I had an idea after looking at k8temp -- why not make it default to > > > > doing only reads from the sensor? You'd only get information from whatever > > > > core/sensor combination that ACPI had last used, but it would be safe. > > > > > > 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. > > > > Oops, sorry about that but no, that will not work. > > > > There's piece of paper, called ACPI specification, and we are > > following it. > > I never suggested otherwise. But the Linux 2.6 device driver model is > based, in part, on the fact that each driver must request the > resources it needs before actually using them. The acpi subsystem fails > to do that, so it is, in that sense, misbehaving. The is the root cause > of the problems people are reporting these days. Ok. You are right that ACPI is an ugly piece of mess. But I'm pretty sure that 90%+ of ACPI notebook implementations *will* want to talk to their monitoring chips... for temperature readings. So even if we fixed ACPI to reserve the ports, you'd be still unhappy; lm-sensors would break at least on all the notebooks. > > Now, you may try to change specs to be hwmon-friendly... good luck. > > I would like them to be driver-model-friendly, that's even a broader > challenge ;) :-). > > But currently hw manufacturers follow ACPI specs, so we have to follow > > it, too; bad luck for hwmon. BIOS hiding smbus from you is good hint > > you are doing something wrong...? > > I would love things to be that easy, but unfortunately they are not. > > Firstly, the first records of hidden SMBus, in September 2000, predate > ACPI. All the early boards where the SMBus was hidden did not have ACPI > code poking at it at all, so this is definitely not the reason why it > was removed. The Asus P4 series is a good example of that. Unhiding the > SMBus on these boards actually let the user take benefit of the > hardware they had paid for. ...against wishes of the manufacturers. Which sometimes know what they are doing. (Sometimes not :-). > I would be happy to prevent SMBus and/or hardware monitoring drivers > from being loaded on ACPI-based system if we had a way to know which > systems do have ACPI code accessing these chips and which do not, and if > ACPI was offering a level of functionality comparable to what > individual hardware monitoring drivers offer. Unfortunately: Well, I'm afraid you should assume all recent notebooks touch sensors from ACPI. > 1* As far as I know, we currently have no way to know if the ACPI code > plans to ever access the hardware monitoring chip. If the acpi > subsystem could export this information somehow, it would help a lot. > But I'm not familiar with ACPI, so I don't know if this is feasable or > not. We just can't prevent the SMBus and hardware monitoring drivers > drivers from being loaded as soon as ACPI is enabled. This would > prevent a majority of users from using them, while they work fine for > most of them. What about whitelist? DMI-based? That's only way to do it, I'm afraid. > 2* The hardware monitoring features offered by ACPI today are one level > of magnitude weaker than what lm_sensors was already offering back in > 1999. The monitoring chips can do much but unfortunately ACPI only > exposes a very small subset of the chip features. ACPI doesn't > handle Yes, I know ACPI sucks at hardware monitoring. Unfortunately, we can't go without ACPI. > voltage monitoring at all. It usually reports no more than one fan, and > in my experience, more often than not, the speed is reported as a > boolean (spinning or not), when lm_sensors gives you the exact speed of > all your fans. ACPI thermal zones are not so bad, but the interface to > control them is ugly, and lm_sensors usually gives more details. And Fix the interface? ;-). Actually that move may be underway as we are moving out of /proc. > What do you propose? Whitelist seems like a way to go :(. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html - 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
