On Sat, 18 Dec 2021 12:39:11 +0900 Hector Martin <marcan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 18/12/2021 11.51, Alex Henrie wrote: > > On Fri, 17 Dec 2021 16:41:05 +0900 > > Hector Martin <marcan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> On 17/12/2021 09.31, Alex Henrie wrote: > >>> I am having a similar problem, but unfortunately this patch doesn't > >>> work for me (I get the error "BIOS uses SMBus unsafely"). Would it be > >>> acceptable to add a module parameter to allow access to the SMBus, even > >>> if the BIOS is using it? I realize that this is not a good idea in > >>> general, but I believe it is safe in my particular case, and I don't > >>> see any other way to solve my problem. > >> > >> How is this safe in your case? If the BIOS is using SMBus without > >> locking it, and may do so at any time, then there's no way to safely use > >> it from Linux. > > > > The BIOS appears to access the SMBus during the first few minutes after > > boot, and then it stops using it. So "safe" may not be the right word, > > but in my case, it seems to work OK to use the SMBus as long as the > > uptime is greater than a few minutes. > > Linux will probe the SMBus on startup, so that still seems like a rather > fragile situation. You'd have to blacklist the module and load it > separately a few minutes after boot, or something like that... It's awful, I agree. I was just hoping to find a slightly less awful solution than patching the kernel to remove the BIOS access check, which is what I currently have to do. It seems to me that if multiple people are in this situation, it might make sense to add a module parameter to disable the check. -Alex
