> Unfortunately logic doesn't rule here -- compatibility > with the installed base is the only thing that matters. > > Of course when we've got examples and counter-examples, > it can be quite a puzzle figuring out what > hoops that installed base is asking us to jump through:-) As one of the 'installed base', I say keep the 1.0 order for .25, because it fixes a real regression that has been around for three releases. We currently have more examples of nVidia boards that were broken by the 2.0 ordering, than we have concrete examples of boards broken by the 1.0 ordering (3 to 1). We had the 1.0 ordering before, and we have a DMI quirk for the one system shown so far to actually be broken with the 1.0 ordering, and, IIUC, we also have the infrastructure now to be able to test either order on systems to gather more information. If we find more systems that break with the 1.0 ordering than 2.0, then yes, we can review this decision in .26. IMHO, we need more concrete data to decide which way we default to (i.e. are nVidia boards just an abberation here, or is this 1.0-ordering-required problem more wide spread? We may be lucky, and we only need to switch to the 1.0 order if we detect an nVidia chipset, or start blacklisting the bad boards/ BIOS's, since I suspect Windows has some sort of nVidia chipset blacklist as well, although I don't know how fine grained). -Carlos -- E-Mail: carlos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Web: strangeworlds.co.uk GPG Key ID: 0x23EE722D -- 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
