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
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
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
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
Hi Bjorn,
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 07:09:19 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Friday 26 October 2007 4:45:20 am Thomas Renninger wrote:
> > Maybe the list set up by this patch set should be similarly exported
> > like /proc/ioports /proc/iomem
> > to where ever appropriate (maybe /sys/devices/system/acp
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 an
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 im
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 re
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 brea
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/
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, 25 Oct 2007 15:51:35 +0200
Jean Delvare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
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-
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
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
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
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 befo
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 unintrusi
18 matches
Mail list logo
