On Wed, Feb 04, 2009 at 02:26:06PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote: > On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 13:17:09 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > Personally, I'd rather that it was "strict" on everything. We might > > break some existing setups, but they're already working mostly by luck. > > Are you the new hwmon and i2c subsystems maintainer and I wasn't aware > of it? If you've got some programmatic way to tell the difference between safe and dangerous reuse of ACPI resources then that would obviously be preferable, but I doubt that's practical. auto is a compromise that avoids one specific case of breakage, but it does nothing to protect us on the majority of systems. Allowing the firmware and the OS to attempt to access the same hardware without any locking is an invitation for disaster, and in the absence of any way to prevent the firmware from doing it... But. Hans asked for my opinion - the maintainer's is obviously more relevant. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@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
