On Thu, 16 Oct 2014, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh > <hmh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > So the question is: are there IBM models (or models that don't send > KEY_MUTE, anyway) that nonetheless expose HAUM and SAUM? If not, then > my patch should be okay. If so, we'll need further filtering. No, these were introduced in the X61/T61. Still, the standard paranoia applies, and you should check for HAUM/SAUM only on VENDOR_LENOVO, and assume they don't exist (because if they do, they are something else) for VENDOR_IBM. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Comprehensive Server Monitoring with Site24x7. Monitor 10 servers for $9/Month. Get alerted through email, SMS, voice calls or mobile push notifications. Take corrective actions from your mobile device. http://p.sf.net/sfu/Zoho _______________________________________________ ibm-acpi-devel mailing list ibm-acpi-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ibm-acpi-devel
