On 8/30/09, Jean Delvare <jdelvare@xxxxxxx> wrote: > 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, Um, the 'generic "thermal" ACPI driver' counts as 'an ACPI driver' :-). > or nothing can > be done (other than a white list, if we really want to get hardware > monitoring on some machines.) Fair point. I don't like the message either. "needs" seems quite a demanding word to me. Personally I'd be happy with just the conflict message which precedes it. > 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. I would drop the word "still", but otherwise I think this is a good idea. Regards Alan -- 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
