[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-id: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1005080112300.5996@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Sat, 08 May 2010 01:19:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [git pull request] ACPI patches for 2.6.34-rc6
> On Sat, 8 May 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > To calrify, I think the approach in the Matthew's patch is correct, but since I have
> > some bad experience with that particular thing, I prefer to make that change in
> > 2.6.35 and then move on to drop the flag entirely.
>
> Oh,yes. I'm not suggesting we do it late in the -rc cycle.
>
> I just don't think the DMI table is a good idea, so in the longer run I
> wan tto get rid of it, rather than have it grow (by quite a few entries,
> in this case).
>
> There are valid reasons for DMI tables in many cases, but in this case I
> think the reason is simply that we do the wrong thing, so then we ended up
> with a DMI table to "fix" the wrong thing we do.
Hi Linus,
Matthew, Rafael and I all agree with you on every aspect of this issue.
The DMI list is temporary. Matthew's patch to do as you say
is already queued for 2.6.35.
I belive that Rafael was prudent in recommending we delay
the "real" fix until .35, as we discovered that the broken
machines suffered a 3-second delay on resume, polling for the SCI_EN
that the BIOS would never set, and so the proposed fix for that
is queued for 2.6.35 as well.
thanks,
-Len
--
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