> > The message "ACPI: Device needs an ACPI driver" is misleading... > > ACPI: Device may still be supported by an ACPI driver > I would drop the word "still", but otherwise I think this is a good idea. I agree we need to clarify this message. Right now we have (copied from a recent bug report): w83627ehf: Found W83627EHG chip at 0x290 ACPI: I/O resource w83627ehf [0x295-0x296] conflicts with ACPI region SEN1 [0x295-0x296] ACPI: Device needs an ACPI driver This results in people filing bugs against ACPI because their sensor driver does not load -- we've seen several already. I'm okay with the 1st ACPI line -- it tells somebody who cares exactly what is going on. "Device needs an ACPI driver", however, fails to tell the administrator what they can do about it. We should probably mention that they can test "acpi_enforce_resources=lax". However, we should probably put a big WARNING - using-at-own-risk note in the dmesg when that option is actually used. And then what is the next course of action -- possible inclusion on a white-list if they conflict turns out to be benign, or (less likely) possible development of a missing ACPI driver? We could have quite a few bug reports filed on this, so wording is important. thanks, -Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center -- 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
