On Sunday 09 March 2008, Zhang, Rui wrote: > thermal fixup for broken BIOS which has invalid trip points. > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8544 > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=120496222629983&w=2 > > Signed-off-by: Zhang Rui<rui.zhang@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/acpi/thermal.c | 4 +++- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > Index: linux-2.6/drivers/acpi/thermal.c > =================================================================== > --- linux-2.6.orig/drivers/acpi/thermal.c > +++ linux-2.6/drivers/acpi/thermal.c > @@ -326,7 +326,9 @@ static int acpi_thermal_set_cooling_mode > #define ACPI_TRIPS_ACTIVE 0x08 > #define ACPI_TRIPS_DEVICES 0x10 > > -#define ACPI_TRIPS_REFRESH_THRESHOLDS (ACPI_TRIPS_PASSIVE | ACPI_TRIPS_ACTIVE) > +#define ACPI_TRIPS_REFRESH_THRESHOLDS (ACPI_TRIPS_PASSIVE | \ > + ACPI_TRIPS_ACTIVE | \ > + ACPI_TRIPS_DEVICES) > #define ACPI_TRIPS_REFRESH_DEVICES ACPI_TRIPS_DEVICES > > #define ACPI_TRIPS_INIT (ACPI_TRIPS_CRITICAL | ACPI_TRIPS_HOT | \ > > I don't like re-evaluating _AL0 on notify x81 as a workaround to notice that there _is_ no _AL0. We should re-evaluate _AL0 on notify x82 -- per the spec. We should print out a single exeception at boot time when we realize that the BIOS has a bug of no _AL0 for the _AC0. At run time, we should have no concept of a valid _AC0 and thus a notify x81 should not try to use it. Can we do that? Otherwise, I think we're obfuscating the code to workaround a broken BIOS. I think we need a test in linuxfirmware kit to verify that there is an ALx for every ACx. thanks, -Len -- 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
