From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jean Delvare Subject: Re: [BUG] ACPI resource validation not working [Was: Re: ITE 8728F] Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 21:12:45 +0100 Message-ID: <20111212211245.67baf2b1@endymion.delvare> References: <94F2FBAB4432B54E8AACC7DFDE6C92E316EE2575@ORSMSX101.amr.corp.intel.com> <1322531323.1467.10.camel@minggr> <1323396109.27764.44.camel@minggr> <20111212103726.56422cbb@endymion.delvare> 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]:31730 "EHLO services.gcu-squad.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753998Ab1LLUNB (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Dec 2011 15:13:01 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Lin Ming Cc: Luca Tettamanti , "Moore, Robert" , Nikolay Mikov , Thomas , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, lenb On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 20:42:50 +0800, Lin Ming wrote: > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Jean Delvare wrote: > > I have no objection for an upstream patch, but the main problem we have > > at the moment is with already released kernels. Versions 2.6.39, 3.0 > > and 3.1 currently have a regression as the ACPI resource conflict > > checks are inefficient, and this allows conflicting drivers to be > > loaded together. So you are free to reimplement things differently in > > version 3.2 and later, but for these 3 older versions we need the > > smallest possible patch, so that it is accepted in stable branches. > > > > In other words, I would like two patches, one just adding back the code > > that was accidentally dropped, and a second one moving things around if > > you think it makes sense (and I tend to agree.) That way we can easily > > backport only the first patch to kernel versions 2.6.39 to 3.1. > > Sure. > > I have send out the patch. > > [PATCH] ACPICA: Put back the call to acpi_os_validate_address > http://marc.info/?l=linux-acpi&m=132257617527119&w=2 Perfect, thank you! -- Jean Delvare