On Tue, 2022-11-22 at 15:49 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On 11/22/22 15:28, Frank Crawford wrote: ... > That is exactly why I had added to flag in the out-of-tree driver. What do you mean here? Are you recommending that is should be take out of there as well? > > > 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. > > Sorry, I'd rather live with 100 users mad with me for not permitting > the patch than permitting it and having to deal with one user who > ended up with broken hardware or random reboots. This _has_ to be a > conscious decision made by users. Yes, and I understand, and yes, that is your call. > > Also, ignoring ACPI resource conflicts always was and always will be > risky. > There is no such thing as a "known safe board". Who knows what > Gigabyte > is going to do in the next version of their BIOS. I would suggest that the possibility of Gigabyte doing that is almost zero. From what I can tell they are not doing anything further with the WMI method, which is where this come in, and even with some recent single chip boards it no longer seems to be supported. But that is a different matter. Unfortunately, they will just leave in the useless stub that does nothing but causes ACPI errors. > > Guenter Regards Frank
