Hi Thomas: I recently told someone in private that ACPI vs. hwmon conflicts are the biggest open problems for the hwmon subsystem. Thank you (and Jean) for doing this. * Thomas Renninger <trenn@xxxxxxx> [2007-10-24 16:31:59 +0200]: > Hi, > > it seems Len's test tree and Linus tree diverged a bit, at least with > this patch set things do not apply cleanly. > > Therefore I post these for discussion whether and in which kernel tree > they should end up before doing work for nothing. > If they are still a candidate for 2.6.24 (rather unintrusive), pls tell > me whether and when I should base them against Len's test/release branch > or whatever other tree. > If not, it would be great if they can be included into the -mm tree and > I can rebase them against this one. Andrew has already picked this series; I vote for extended time in -mm. On the hwmon side, there is almost guaranteed to be fallout from this that may take time to resolve. > (...) > A boot parameter acpi_enforce_resources=strict/lax/no is provided, which > is default set to lax: > - strict: let conflicting drivers fail to load with an error message > - lax: let conflicting driver work normal with a warning message > - no: no functional change at all > Depending on the feedback and the kind of interferences we see, this > should be set to strict at later time. As long as it's in -mm, you may as well default to =strict right away. This will force people to report. Open the floodgates; I hope I don't drown. Regards, -- Mark M. Hoffman mhoffman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx - 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
