On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 05:15:26PM -0500, Chase Douglas wrote: > I understand your points, but from the user's perspective they had > something that worked perfectly fine before, and now it doesn't. Have > there been any reports of anyone's hardware being adversely affected by > doubly acquiring the acpi region? Beyond that, have there been any > reports of any adverse affects of any kind? I really don't understand your position here. Like I said, the probability of a collision between ACPI and the OS is low. On the other hand, the potential outcome of such a collision is hardware damage. This isn't even close to being something that should be considered. > I'm not advocating for enabling acpi_enforce_resources=lax across the > board. That would be foolish, especially since there is an existing acpi > driver that would be harmed. However, a whitelist of known-working > hardware would allow us to cater to users needs while still being fairly > careful. How are you defining "known-working"? You've verified that the system management code on the hardware in question makes no accesses to the smbus? -- 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
