One thing I'm concerning is that if we could enable polling in Linux. Bug #8842 shows that polling may break some laptops. And we have known that windows never enable polling. Although this patch will not break the laptop in #8842, it still may bring some potential risks if we enable polling in Linux. IMO, a dmi entry would be much more acceptable... Thanks, rui >-----Original Message----- >From: Pavel Machek [mailto:pavel@xxxxxxx] >Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 2:54 AM >To: Matthew Garrett >Cc: Zhang, Rui; linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >Subject: Re: [Patch v2] Implement thermal limiting in the generic thermal class > >Hi! > >> In the absence of an explicitly defined passive cooling zone any >> machine unable to manage its thermal profile through active cooling will >> reach its critical shutdown temperature and power off, resulting in >> potential data loss. Add support to the generic thermal class for >> initiating passive cooling at a temperature defaulting to just below the >> critical temperature, with this value being overridable by the admin via >> sysfs. > >This means we get two copies of passive cooling code: one generic, and >one in acpi. Can we make sure we have just one of them? > >-- >(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek >(cesky, pictures) >http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- 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
