[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.0.9999.0712272138110.21557@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 21:41:32 -0800 (PST)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Robert Hancock <hancockr@...w.ca>
cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Carlos Corbacho <carlos@...angeworlds.co.uk>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Suspend code ordering (again)
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007, Robert Hancock wrote:
>
> I doubt they would prefer the later ordering in any way that matters, if the
> Windows version they were designed for uses the earlier ordering.
Well, I wouldn't say it's abotu "preferring" one over the other. It's very
possible that the BIOS writers were *intending* to prefer ACPI 2.0, and it
may even be likely that they thought that they wrote it that way, but the
real issue is that it has apparently never ever been *tested* that way.
So yes, maybe the vendors actually thought they were a good ACPI-2.0
implementation, but if Windows doesn't do the ordering that the 2.0 spec
expects, then that is pretty much just a theoretical thing.
But yeah, it would be really nice to have this verified some way. Somebody
must already know (whether it's a VM person or a BIOS writer, and whether
they'd tell us, is obviously another issue).
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists