On Sunday 23 December 2007 2:28:05 am Jean Delvare wrote:
> Le 23/12/2007, Bjorn Helgaas a écrit:
> >On Saturday 22 December 2007 4:21:41 am Jean Delvare wrote:
> >> >This patch makes the it87 driver request only the two ports used for
> >> > the Environment Controller device.
> >>
> >> The problem
Hi Bjorn,
Le 23/12/2007, Bjorn Helgaas a écrit:
>On Saturday 22 December 2007 4:21:41 am Jean Delvare wrote:
>> >This patch makes the it87 driver request only the two ports used for the
>> >Environment Controller device.
>>
>> The problem is that the IT87xxF chips do decode 4 ports (recent chips,
On Saturday 22 December 2007 4:21:41 am Jean Delvare wrote:
> >This patch makes the it87 driver request only the two ports used for the
> >Environment Controller device.
>
> The problem is that the IT87xxF chips do decode 4 ports (recent chips,
> 0x294-0x297) or 8 ports (older chips, 0x290-0x297),
Hi Bjorn,
Le 21/12/2007, "Bjorn Helgaas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit:
>On Tuesday 18 December 2007 10:59:18 am Jean Delvare wrote:
>> My initial idea was to identify the faulty motherboard using DMI and to
>> force pnpacpi=off on the faulty motherboards. If this is considered too
>> aggressive,
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 12:00:30 -0700
Bjorn Helgaas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What do you think of something like the following patch? If we do
> this, I don't think we'd need to force pnpacpi=off or change the
> way PNP reserves resources.
>
> I'll be on vacation until about January 2, so I won
On Tuesday 18 December 2007 10:59:18 am Jean Delvare wrote:
> My initial idea was to identify the faulty motherboard using DMI and to
> force pnpacpi=off on the faulty motherboards. If this is considered too
> aggressive, maybe we can just reject resource declarations that
> intersect (but don't ma
On Thursday 20 December 2007 02:13:22 Elvis Pranskevichus wrote:
> Hi Carlos,
>
> I've attached the DSDT for Gigabyte GA-965G-DS3 (rev 1.0, bios rev. F9) to
> bugzilla entry #9514:
>
> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=14132
A quick look over the DSDT shows that there is no ACPI-WMI map
On Wednesday December 19 2007 07:45:14 pm Carlos Corbacho wrote:
> On Thursday 20 December 2007 00:20:21 Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > I suspect the manufacturers would say "Oh, the sensors? The BIOS
> > isn't broken, you're just supposed to use WMI or some (undocumented)
> > ACPI device to get at thos
Carlos Corbacho wrote:
On Thursday 20 December 2007 00:20:21 Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
I suspect the manufacturers would say "Oh, the sensors? The BIOS
isn't broken, you're just supposed to use WMI or some (undocumented)
ACPI device to get at those."
It's quite possible - can we have DSDTs for the
On Thursday 20 December 2007 00:20:21 Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> I suspect the manufacturers would say "Oh, the sensors? The BIOS
> isn't broken, you're just supposed to use WMI or some (undocumented)
> ACPI device to get at those."
It's quite possible - can we have DSDTs for the boards in question s
On Tuesday 18 December 2007 10:59:18 am Jean Delvare wrote:
> The real cause is pretty clear here: broken BIOS. In an ideal world we
> would ask the manufacturer for a fixed BIOS and they would give that to
> us, unfortunately my experience is that it won't happen. So, unless we
> accept that idea
On Sunday 09 December 2007 09:02:11 pm Mike Houston wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:31:27 +0800
> Shaohua Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This should exist in previous kernel (before we remove acpi
> > motherboard driver) too. Basically it's a broken BIOS. Could below
> > patch work around it?
>
Hi Bjorn,
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 10:14:43 -0700, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Sunday 16 December 2007 06:59:39 pm Shaohua Li wrote:
> > On Sun, 2007-12-09 at 23:02 -0500, Mike Houston wrote:
> > > On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:31:27 +0800
> > > Shaohua Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > This should exist in
On Sunday 16 December 2007 06:59:39 pm Shaohua Li wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-12-09 at 23:02 -0500, Mike Houston wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:31:27 +0800
> > Shaohua Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > This should exist in previous kernel (before we remove acpi
> > > motherboard driver) too. Basical
On Sun, 2007-12-09 at 23:02 -0500, Mike Houston wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:31:27 +0800
> Shaohua Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This should exist in previous kernel (before we remove acpi
> > motherboard driver) too. Basically it's a broken BIOS. Could below
> > patch work around it?
> >
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:31:27 +0800
Shaohua Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This should exist in previous kernel (before we remove acpi
> motherboard driver) too. Basically it's a broken BIOS. Could below
> patch work around it?
>
> Thanks,
> Shaohua
>
> Index: linux/drivers/pnp/system.c
> ===
On Sunday December 9 2007 09:31:27 pm Shaohua Li wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-12-09 at 23:04 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 09, 2007 at 04:12:25PM -0500, Elvis Pranskevichus wrote:
> > > Jean Delvare wrote:
> > > > Hi Mike,
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 21:22:34 -0500, Mike Houston wrote:
On Sun, 2007-12-09 at 23:04 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 09, 2007 at 04:12:25PM -0500, Elvis Pranskevichus wrote:
> > Jean Delvare wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Mike,
> > >
> > > On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 21:22:34 -0500, Mike Houston wrote:
> > >> On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 01:05:54 +0100
> > >> Adrian Bunk <
Mike Houston wrote:
On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 23:42:15 +0100
Jean Delvare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 16:12:25 -0500, Elvis Pranskevichus wrote:
This indeed looks like a broken ACPI BIOS since the
aforementioned commit touches only the PNP ACPI driver. I'm not
sure how
On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 23:42:15 +0100
Jean Delvare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 16:12:25 -0500, Elvis Pranskevichus wrote:
> > This indeed looks like a broken ACPI BIOS since the
> > aforementioned commit touches only the PNP ACPI driver. I'm not
> > sure how to work around this,
On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 23:42:15 +0100
Jean Delvare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In the meantime, I guess that booting with pnpacpi=off should fix
> your problem. But it might break something else; I'm not sure what
> the PNP ACPI driver is good for in the first place.
Ahh, thanks guys. Yes, that did i
Hi Elvis,
On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 16:12:25 -0500, Elvis Pranskevichus wrote:
> I have exactly the same problem here on a Gigabyte GA-965G-DS3 motherboard
> based box:
Same motherboard as Mike has.
> it87: Found IT8718F chip at 0x290, revision 1
> it87: in3 is VCC (+5V)
> it87 it87.656: Failed to req
On Sun, Dec 09, 2007 at 04:12:25PM -0500, Elvis Pranskevichus wrote:
> Jean Delvare wrote:
>
> > Hi Mike,
> >
> > On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 21:22:34 -0500, Mike Houston wrote:
> >> On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 01:05:54 +0100
> >> Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 09:51:54
Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 21:22:34 -0500, Mike Houston wrote:
>> On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 01:05:54 +0100
>> Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 09:51:54PM -0500, Mike Houston wrote:
>> > > I finally got around to testing Linux 2.6.24 (2.6.
On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 10:50:28 +0100
Jean Delvare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This one shows:
>
> system 00:01: ioport range 0x290-0x29f has been reserved
> (...)
> system 00:01: ioport range 0x290-0x294 has been reserved
>
> This is clearly not correct as both areas overlap. The second
> reservat
Hi Mike,
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 21:22:34 -0500, Mike Houston wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 01:05:54 +0100
> Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 09:51:54PM -0500, Mike Houston wrote:
> > > I finally got around to testing Linux 2.6.24 (2.6.24-rc4) and
> > > found that the
26 matches
Mail list logo
