From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jean Delvare Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI: add "auto" to acpi_enforce_resources Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 14:26:06 +0100 Message-ID: <20090204142606.1823661b@hyperion.delvare> References: <20090125210520.GA12963@dreamland.darkstar.lan> <200901291130.35434.trenn@suse.de> <68676e00901290716g1aabd6c0p1e5202fbdbc659a4@mail.gmail.com> <20090204060513.GA28321@srcf.ucam.org> <498953DF.5050306@redhat.com> <20090204131708.GA2739@srcf.ucam.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from zone0.gcu-squad.org ([212.85.147.21]:26281 "EHLO services.gcu-squad.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757756AbZBDN0c (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Feb 2009 08:26:32 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20090204131708.GA2739@srcf.ucam.org> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Matthew Garrett Cc: Hans de Goede , Len Brown , Luca Tettamanti , Thomas Renninger , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Matthew, On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 13:17:09 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Wed, Feb 04, 2009 at 09:37:51AM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > > > Len, Matthew, what is you opinion of the proposed auto setting for > > acpi_enforce_resources, which is meant to mean strict on known problematic > > systems and lax on others? > > Personally, I'd rather that it was "strict" on everything. We might > break some existing setups, but they're already working mostly by luck. Are you the new hwmon and i2c subsystems maintainer and I wasn't aware of it? -- Jean Delvare