The message "ACPI: Device needs an ACPI driver" is misleading. The device _may_ need an ACPI driver, if the BIOS implemented an API for the device in question (which, AFAIK, can't be checked.) If not, then either the generic "thermal" ACPI driver may be used, or nothing can be done (other than a white list, if we really want to get hardware monitoring on some machines.) I propose to reword the message to: ACPI: Device may still be supported by an ACPI driver which I think is more correct. Comments and suggestions welcome. Signed-off-by: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@xxxxxxx> Cc: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@xxxxxxxxx> Cc: Len Brown <len.brown@xxxxxxxxx> Cc: Thomas Renninger <trenn@xxxxxxx> --- drivers/acpi/osl.c | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) --- linux-2.6.31-rc8.orig/drivers/acpi/osl.c 2009-08-28 19:48:58.000000000 +0200 +++ linux-2.6.31-rc8/drivers/acpi/osl.c 2009-08-30 10:10:51.000000000 +0200 @@ -1182,7 +1182,8 @@ int acpi_check_resource_conflict(struct res_list_elem->name, (long long) res_list_elem->start, (long long) res_list_elem->end); - printk(KERN_INFO "ACPI: Device needs an ACPI driver\n"); + printk(KERN_INFO "ACPI: Device may still be supported" + " by an ACPI driver\n"); } if (acpi_enforce_resources == ENFORCE_RESOURCES_STRICT) return -EBUSY; -- Jean Delvare Suse L3 -- 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
