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 - 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
