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 - 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
