[Bug 204807] Hardware monitoring sensor nct6798d doesn't work unless acpi_enforce_resources=lax is enabled

bugzilla-daemon
2021-03-22T11:33:17Z

Andy Shevchenko (andy.shevchenko@gmail.com) changed:

What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |andy.shevchenko@gmail.com

--- Comment #51 from Andy Shevchenko (andy.shevchenko@gmail.com) ---
(In reply to Artem S. Tashkinov from comment #49)
> (In reply to Andy Shevchenko from comment #48)
> > Matthew gave a really good explanation on techical background what's going
> > on. What you really need is to amend existing driver(s) or provide a new
> one
> > to fulfill the functionality you want to have.
>
> I'm not a programmer let alone a person who understand the innards of the
> Linux kernel to even attempt to fix the issue, not to mention that:
>
> > Note I believe that this will not be a whole lot of work (but its not
> trivial
> > either).
>
> Maybe we have ... kernel developers who can do that instead, for instance
> lm-sensors maintainers. I don't know. I'm confused. I did my best to report
> the issue. Meanwhile I'll continue to use the hack since I want to monitor
> my HW right now - not a few years later when someone finally ventures to
> scratch the itch. Thank you very much ;-)

Artem,
I feel your pain. Believe me, I have got into the similar situation(s) myself
being actually a kernel developer! I'm often being frustrated, but that's how
it works in Linux and in OSS in general. The root cause here is the production
model used by world of Windows and world of Linux (and besides the downsides
like above I prefer the latter). For Windows the drivers are made for *THE
product* while in *nix world the drivers try to cover as many products as they
can with regard to the similarities and compatibility of the corresponding IPs.
That's why people often see "oh, hey, it works in Windows!" Yes, it works, but
if and only if you are using the very same *THE product*. Step right or left
will be a suicidal in that model. The Windows model is very fragile because of
this and requires 10x times more resources to develop the code. OSS community
simply does not have such resources to fulfill a job and due to economical
reasons even Micro$oft also found advantages in the OSS model (but not with the
drivers, unfortunately). The best help for you and for the rest is to be on the
constructive side. You see, you even may yourself to develop a solution and
become (a well paid) kernel developer. Or just for fun (look at the example of
Intel IPU3 CIO2 camera glue layer (to support Windows only platforms) which is
done solely by one guy who declared that he even didn't know C programming
language before!

So, please, do not blame people here, it's rather the problem of the model.