On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 11:27 PM, Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> So I guess this function, pnpbios_init() needs the check as well. In
> fact, it has this:
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_PNPACPI
> if (!acpi_disabled && !pnpacpi_disabled) {
> pnpbios_disabled = 1;
> printk(KERN_INFO "PnPBIOS: Disabled by ACPI PNP\n");
> return -ENODEV;
> }
> #endif /* CONFIG_ACPI */
>
> ...I guess that should be changed to say if (acpi_disabled ||
> pnpacpi_disabled)? Or... I don't understand the purpose of the
> original test. But it seems to be there since the beginning of time
> (or, well, v2.6.12-rc2).
Nope. I found the introduction of the change in the historical git repository:
commit 4723ebe898a32262ed49fe677897ccea47e72ff4
Author: Adam Belay <ambx1@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun Oct 24 15:07:32 2004 -0400
[PNPBIOS] disable if ACPI is active
As further ACPI pnp functionaility is implemented it is no longer
safe to run ACPI and PNPBIOS concurrently.
We therefore take the following approach:
- attempt to enable ACPI support
- if ACPI fails (blacklist etc.) enable pnpbios support
- if ACPI support is not compiled in the kernel enable pnpbios support
Signed-off-by: Adam Belay <ambx1@xxxxxxxxxx>
and now I understand the purpose of the check; pnpbios does not depend
on ACPI; ACPI/pnpacpi is incompatible with pnpbios.
Yet it remains a fact that pnpbios will discover devices which then
ACPI code uses erroneously. Which means that my original fix for Ingo
probably is the right one after all. Should I submit another patch
which does the right thing for everything under drivers/acpi/, or can
you do it on your own? :-)
Vegard
--
"The animistic metaphor of the bug that maliciously sneaked in while
the programmer was not looking is intellectually dishonest as it
disguises that the error is the programmer's own creation."
-- E. W. Dijkstra, EWD1036
--
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
