Hi Bjorn,
Le 23/12/2007, Bjorn Helgaas a écrit:
On Saturday 22 December 2007 4:21:41 am Jean Delvare wrote:
This patch makes the it87 driver request only the two ports used for the
Environment Controller device.
The problem is that the IT87xxF chips do decode 4 ports (recent chips,
On Sunday 23 December 2007 2:28:05 am Jean Delvare wrote:
Le 23/12/2007, Bjorn Helgaas a écrit:
On Saturday 22 December 2007 4:21:41 am Jean Delvare wrote:
This patch makes the it87 driver request only the two ports used for
the Environment Controller device.
The problem is that the
Hi Bjorn,
Le 21/12/2007, Bjorn Helgaas [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit:
On Tuesday 18 December 2007 10:59:18 am Jean Delvare wrote:
My initial idea was to identify the faulty motherboard using DMI and to
force pnpacpi=off on the faulty motherboards. If this is considered too
aggressive, maybe we
On Saturday 22 December 2007 4:21:41 am Jean Delvare wrote:
This patch makes the it87 driver request only the two ports used for the
Environment Controller device.
The problem is that the IT87xxF chips do decode 4 ports (recent chips,
0x294-0x297) or 8 ports (older chips, 0x290-0x297), not 2
On Tuesday 18 December 2007 10:59:18 am Jean Delvare wrote:
My initial idea was to identify the faulty motherboard using DMI and to
force pnpacpi=off on the faulty motherboards. If this is considered too
aggressive, maybe we can just reject resource declarations that
intersect (but don't
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 12:00:30 -0700
Bjorn Helgaas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What do you think of something like the following patch? If we do
this, I don't think we'd need to force pnpacpi=off or change the
way PNP reserves resources.
I'll be on vacation until about January 2, so I won't be
On Sunday 09 December 2007 09:02:11 pm Mike Houston wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:31:27 +0800
Shaohua Li [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This should exist in previous kernel (before we remove acpi
motherboard driver) too. Basically it's a broken BIOS. Could below
patch work around it?
On Tuesday 18 December 2007 10:59:18 am Jean Delvare wrote:
The real cause is pretty clear here: broken BIOS. In an ideal world we
would ask the manufacturer for a fixed BIOS and they would give that to
us, unfortunately my experience is that it won't happen. So, unless we
accept that idea
On Thursday 20 December 2007 00:20:21 Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
I suspect the manufacturers would say Oh, the sensors? The BIOS
isn't broken, you're just supposed to use WMI or some (undocumented)
ACPI device to get at those.
It's quite possible - can we have DSDTs for the boards in question so we
Carlos Corbacho wrote:
On Thursday 20 December 2007 00:20:21 Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
I suspect the manufacturers would say Oh, the sensors? The BIOS
isn't broken, you're just supposed to use WMI or some (undocumented)
ACPI device to get at those.
It's quite possible - can we have DSDTs for the
On Wednesday December 19 2007 07:45:14 pm Carlos Corbacho wrote:
On Thursday 20 December 2007 00:20:21 Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
I suspect the manufacturers would say Oh, the sensors? The BIOS
isn't broken, you're just supposed to use WMI or some (undocumented)
ACPI device to get at those.
On Thursday 20 December 2007 02:13:22 Elvis Pranskevichus wrote:
Hi Carlos,
I've attached the DSDT for Gigabyte GA-965G-DS3 (rev 1.0, bios rev. F9) to
bugzilla entry #9514:
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=14132
A quick look over the DSDT shows that there is no ACPI-WMI mapper
Hi Bjorn,
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 10:14:43 -0700, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
On Sunday 16 December 2007 06:59:39 pm Shaohua Li wrote:
On Sun, 2007-12-09 at 23:02 -0500, Mike Houston wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:31:27 +0800
Shaohua Li [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This should exist in previous
On Sunday 16 December 2007 06:59:39 pm Shaohua Li wrote:
On Sun, 2007-12-09 at 23:02 -0500, Mike Houston wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:31:27 +0800
Shaohua Li [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This should exist in previous kernel (before we remove acpi
motherboard driver) too. Basically it's a
On Sun, 2007-12-09 at 23:02 -0500, Mike Houston wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:31:27 +0800
Shaohua Li [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This should exist in previous kernel (before we remove acpi
motherboard driver) too. Basically it's a broken BIOS. Could below
patch work around it?
Thanks,
On Sun, Dec 09, 2007 at 04:12:25PM -0500, Elvis Pranskevichus wrote:
Jean Delvare wrote:
Hi Mike,
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 21:22:34 -0500, Mike Houston wrote:
On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 01:05:54 +0100
Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 09:51:54PM -0500, Mike Houston
On Sun, 2007-12-09 at 23:04 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sun, Dec 09, 2007 at 04:12:25PM -0500, Elvis Pranskevichus wrote:
Jean Delvare wrote:
Hi Mike,
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 21:22:34 -0500, Mike Houston wrote:
On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 01:05:54 +0100
Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sunday December 9 2007 09:31:27 pm Shaohua Li wrote:
On Sun, 2007-12-09 at 23:04 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sun, Dec 09, 2007 at 04:12:25PM -0500, Elvis Pranskevichus wrote:
Jean Delvare wrote:
Hi Mike,
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 21:22:34 -0500, Mike Houston wrote:
On Sun, 9 Dec
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:31:27 +0800
Shaohua Li [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This should exist in previous kernel (before we remove acpi
motherboard driver) too. Basically it's a broken BIOS. Could below
patch work around it?
Thanks,
Shaohua
Index: linux/drivers/pnp/system.c
19 matches
Mail list logo
