On Tue, 2022-11-22 at 10:46 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 01:57:18PM +1100, Frank Crawford wrote: > > On some Gigabyte boards sensors are marked as ACPI regions but not > > really handled by ACPI calls, as they return no data. > > Most commonly this is seen on boards with multiple ITE chips. > > In this case we just ignore the failure and continue on. > > > > This is effectively the same as the use of either > > acpi_enforce_resources=lax (kernel) > > or > > ignore_resource_conflict=1 (it87) > > but set programatically. > > > > Signed-off-by: Frank Crawford <frank@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > Sorry, I can not accept this patch. Ignoring resource conflicts > may have unintentional side effects and _has_ to be explicitly > requested by the user. I do have two comments on that decision, firstly, for the bulk of the boards listed I've dumped the ACPI tables and data and the conflicting address ranges do nothing with ACPI. It looks like Gigabyte planned to implement WMI access, but stopped after developing some code for single chipset boards, and just nulled out anything to do with boards with two chips. However, getting any information from Gigabyte about this is impossible, as you know. Secondly, unfortunately most users have no idea what the ACPI error means, and just follow random comments on the Internet, which currently is to set "acpi_enforce_resources=lax" which is even more dangerous. At least the recent addition of "ignore_resource_conflict=1" restricts the issue to a known area, and this would take it one step further in that we are just automating it for known "safe" boards. However, if you are not willing to accept it, I'll just drop it there. > > Guenter Regards Frank > >
