> Hi,
>
> it seems Len's test tree and Linus tree diverged a bit, at least with
> this patch set things do not apply cleanly.
>
> Therefore I post these for discussion whether and in which kernel tree
> they should end up before doing work for nothing.
> If they are still a candidate for 2.6.24 (rather unintrusive), pls tell
> me whether and when I should base them against Len's test/release branch
> or whatever other tree.
> If not, it would be great if they can be included into the -mm tree and
> I can rebase them against this one.
>
> Be aware that there is a small change in ACPICA (first patch, that's
> also the reason why this one would not compile on its own).
>
> Many thanks for detailed review, testing and a lot implementation help
> go to Jean Delvare, without his help I would not be able to post
> anything right now.
>
> Thanks for any help/advise,
>
> Thomas
>
> --------------
> Short general description:
>
> In ACPI, AML can define accesses to IO ports and System Memory by
> Operation Regions. Those are not registered as done by PNPACPI using
> resource templates (and _CRS/_SRS methods).
> The IO ports and System Memory regions may get accessed by arbitrary AML
> code. When native drivers are accessing the same resources bad things
> can happen (e.g. a critical shutdown temperature of 3000 C every 2
> months or so).
> It is not really possible to register the operation regions via
> request_resource, as they often overlap with pnp or other resources
> (e.g. statically setup IO resources below 0x100).
> This approach stores all Operation Region declarations (IO and System
> Memory only) at ACPI table parse time. It offers a similar functionality
> like request_region and let drivers which are known to possibly use the
> same IO ports and Memory which are also often used by ACPI (hwmon and
> i2c) check for ACPI interference.
>
> A boot parameter acpi_enforce_resources=strict/lax/no is provided, which
> is default set to lax:
> - strict: let conflicting drivers fail to load with an error message
> - lax: let conflicting driver work normal with a warning message
> - no: no functional change at all
> Depending on the feedback and the kind of interferences we see, this
> should be set to strict at later time.
>
> Goal of this patch set is:
> - Identify ACPI interferences in bug reports (very hard to reproduce
> and to identify)
> - Find BIOSes for that an ACPI driver should exist for specific HW
> instead of a native one.
> - stability in general
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
> the body of a message to
majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at
http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
