On Saturday, 5 of January 2008, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 07:26:33PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Saturday, 5 of January 2008, Michel Lespinasse wrote: > > > The patch did not work as you sent it, but doing the same in acpi_pm_open() > > > (i.e. forcing it to execute the revision<3 code) worked. > > > I'm now doing a happy dance :) > > > > > > So what now, do you need some kind of signature for the system ? > > > (I realize that would probably be some kind of DMI string, > > > but I'm not sure where/how to obtain it) > > > > Well, I think I'd rather want to introduce a boot parameter for that. Stay > > tuned. > > Surely this implies that the only behaviour tested (and, so, presumably > the only behaviour implemented in Windows) is the 1.0-style flow? If so, > we should just default to that regardless of what the spec says. Yes, but we have quite a lot of systems working with the current code, so I'd like to give them a chance to use the post-1.0 ordering (just in case). Thanks, Rafael - 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
