[Sorry for the duplicate; I fat-fingered my reply and inadvertently introduced an HTML sub-part, causing linux-acpi to reject it as spam.] On Friday 08 December 2006 03:29, Len Brown wrote: > On Thursday 07 December 2006 11:28, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > Is it possible to extend the PNP model to include ACPI, rather > > than introducing a new ACPI model alongside the PNP model? > > Hmmm, well, I thought we were doing well to get ride of ACPI specific > devices names... > > The PNPBIOS + ACPI box will never run both PNPBIOS and ACPI at > the same time. Right. But should the fact that we use ACPI instead of PNPBIOS make a difference to userland? My intuition says "no." Obviously there might be new devices and new functionality with ACPI, so there might be new files and knobs in sysfs, but if you don't care about those, it'd be nice if all the old PNP stuff just worked. > My question is where the "cut point is". At what point do we start > pushing this work upstream, and what parts of it? I don't want to delay pushing Zhang's patches upstream. I think they are definitely a step in the right direction. Bjorn - 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
