On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 20:50:33 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
On Saturday 27 October 2007 9:09:47 am Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 09:06:22AM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
But we really *should* reserve things used by opregions, shouldn't
we? After all, the whole point of
On Sun, Oct 28, 2007 at 08:50:33PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
On Saturday 27 October 2007 9:09:47 am Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 09:06:22AM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
But we really *should* reserve things used by opregions, shouldn't
we? After all, the whole point of
On Saturday 27 October 2007 9:09:47 am Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 09:06:22AM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
But we really *should* reserve things used by opregions, shouldn't
we? After all, the whole point of resource reservation is to prevent
conflicts.
Only if you're
On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 09:06:22AM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
But we really *should* reserve things used by opregions, shouldn't
we? After all, the whole point of resource reservation is to prevent
conflicts.
Only if you're happy to lose functionality like IDE, sadly.
--
Matthew Garrett |
On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 21:59 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
On Thursday 25 October 2007 4:55:07 pm Thomas Renninger wrote:
On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 09:06 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
Isn't the real problem that we have a bunch of drivers that use some of
the same resources, and if ACPI reserved
On Friday 26 October 2007 4:45:20 am Thomas Renninger wrote:
On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 21:59 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
On Thursday 25 October 2007 4:55:07 pm Thomas Renninger wrote:
Also the BIOS developers seem to choose the regions in a very dump way
sometimes.
Just some imaginary
Hi Andrew,
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 13:24:10 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 15:51:35 +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
Thanks for picking these patches, having them in -mm for some time is
exactly what we need. Let's see how many systems are affected by the
resource conflicts and how
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
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 20:57:23 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:31:59 +0200 Thomas Renninger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
On Wednesday 24 October 2007 08:31:59 am Thomas Renninger wrote:
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
Hi Mark,
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 08:04:38 -0400, Mark M. Hoffman wrote:
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
This is one of the most imortant issues with ACPI in Linux,
and I too thank you, Thomas and Jean, for your hard work
seeking the right solution.
1, 2 and 3 of 5 applied to acpi-test.
thanks,
-Len
On Wednesday 24 October 2007 10:31, Thomas Renninger wrote:
Hi,
it seems Len's test tree and
On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 09:06 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
On Wednesday 24 October 2007 08:31:59 am Thomas Renninger wrote:
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
On Thursday 25 October 2007 4:55:07 pm Thomas Renninger wrote:
On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 09:06 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
Isn't the real problem that we have a bunch of drivers that use some of
the same resources, and if ACPI reserved all the right resources, all
those drivers would break?
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
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:31:59 +0200 Thomas Renninger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
16 matches
Mail list logo
