Hi Thomas:
I recently told someone in private that ACPI vs. hwmon conflicts are the
biggest open problems for the hwmon subsystem. Thank you (and Jean) for
doing this.
* Thomas Renninger <[email protected]> [2007-10-24 16:31:59 +0200]:
> 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.
Andrew has already picked this series; I vote for extended time in -mm. On the
hwmon side, there is almost guaranteed to be fallout from this that may take
time to resolve.
> (...)
> 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.
As long as it's in -mm, you may as well default to =strict right away. This
will force people to report. Open the floodgates; I hope I don't drown.
Regards,
--
Mark M. Hoffman
[email protected]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
