On Tue, Oct 25, 2005 at 10:43:10AM -0400, John W. Linville wrote: > I would like to see a patch like this upstream. I'm not sure how to > convince Len Brown to let it in. > > I don't think putting it in Fedora is necessarily a bad idea, but it > is not a slam dunk either (based on support concerns as pointed-out > elsewhere). The Intel folks have refused to merge it upstream as they'd rather fix the interpretor to work around broken tables. Some other vendors are also very helpful in the "Whack BIOS vendor on the head" dept when bad tables get reported to them. If Fedora carried such a patch, we could forget all about ever looking at fixing ACPI bugs that get reported, as I can guarantee we'd get reports that conveniently 'forgot' to mention they've hacked their DSDT in wierd and wonderful ways. The ability to screw up AML is hurrendously easy, and the number of wannabe AML hackers frankly, scares me witless. A lot of folk seem to think that things are as simple as .. - disassemble DSDT - fix up warnings from AML compiler - put DSDT into initrd. This is *wrong* on so many levels. For one, even if it does fix the problems the user was seeing, how does it help the next user that hits the problem on the same hardware ? We can't expect every user to have to patch their DSDT. The correct answer is "Fix the BIOS", or where that isn't feasible "Work around it in the interpretor" (Especially if its a widespread problem). Dave -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
