From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jean Delvare Subject: [PATCH] ACPI: Clarify resource conflict message Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 15:46:22 +0200 Message-ID: <200908301546.22827.jdelvare@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from cantor.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:54707 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753392AbZH3NqV (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Aug 2009 09:46:21 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org Cc: Zhang Rui , Len Brown , Thomas Renninger The message "ACPI: Device needs an ACPI driver" is misleading. The device _may_ need an ACPI driver, if the BIOS implemented an API for the device in question (which, AFAIK, can't be checked.) If not, then either the generic "thermal" ACPI driver may be used, or nothing can be done (other than a white list, if we really want to get hardware monitoring on some machines.) I propose to reword the message to: ACPI: Device may still be supported by an ACPI driver which I think is more correct. Comments and suggestions welcome. Signed-off-by: Jean Delvare Cc: Zhang Rui Cc: Len Brown Cc: Thomas Renninger --- drivers/acpi/osl.c | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) --- linux-2.6.31-rc8.orig/drivers/acpi/osl.c 2009-08-28 19:48:58.000000000 +0200 +++ linux-2.6.31-rc8/drivers/acpi/osl.c 2009-08-30 10:10:51.000000000 +0200 @@ -1182,7 +1182,8 @@ int acpi_check_resource_conflict(struct res_list_elem->name, (long long) res_list_elem->start, (long long) res_list_elem->end); - printk(KERN_INFO "ACPI: Device needs an ACPI driver\n"); + printk(KERN_INFO "ACPI: Device may still be supported" + " by an ACPI driver\n"); } if (acpi_enforce_resources == ENFORCE_RESOURCES_STRICT) return -EBUSY; -- Jean Delvare Suse L3