Oops, previous message got sent before I had typed anything! Andi, I just wanted to be clear that my patch is not a VIA workaround, it is a VIA workaround workaround. So please don't remove my patch while leaving in the original VIA workaround. That will break our platform, and possibly others. I don't know if there's an easy way to have both the VIA workaround (Natalie's original patch) and the VIA workaround workaround (my patch) in a more unified construct. I believe our platform would work fine with the removal of my patch _and_ the VIA patch. But, as you say, what about VIA? -kimball On 4/26/06, Kimball Murray <kimball.murray@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Andi, > > > > On 4/26/06, Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tuesday 25 April 2006 21:53, Brown, Len wrote: > > > I'd rather see the original irq-renaming patch > > > and its subsequent multiple via workaround patches > > > reverted than to further complicate what is becoming > > > a fragile mess. > > > > Sorry rechecking - i already got the patch now. You want me to drop it again? > > > > I guess we could drop it all, but VIA must still work afterwards. > > How would we do that? > > > > -Andi > > > - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
