On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Chris Wedgwood wrote: > On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 02:51:14PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > This patch allows for ibm-acpi to coexist (with diminished > > functionality) with other drivers like ACPI_BAY. > > Given the ACP_IBM_BAY implementation is more complete (or seems to be, > please comment if that isn't the case) we should probably actually > make sure that is the *preferred* code used (on suitable hardware) at > run time surely? ACPI_BAY is experimental, ibm-acpi bay handling is not. In fact, ACPI_BAY will debut in mainline in 2.6.21, ibm-acpi bay handling sort of works since 2.6.10. I hope to have something much better than this stopgap patch for 2.6.22, and to deprecate ibm-acpi bay (or have it working in *cooperation* with ACPI_BAY) for 2.6.23. > Perhaps the IBM_ACPI_BAY code should go away and any missing > functionality provided there should be merged into ACPI_BAY? That's the plan, yes. Failing that, we shall attempt to make both drivers cooperate (not only load together, but actually work together). -- "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 - 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
