On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 08:05:42PM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > It is the reverse -- checking the DSDT ID is coarser, matching all the > systems that use the broken firmware. With DMI we may face both false > positives and false negatives which imply further maintenance actions. > Please note as proved over the years understanding of these issues seems > to be problematic for people, so the result may be another round of > discussions reinventing the wheel in a couple of years' time or so. The DSDT can't be updated without the BIOS being updated, and the DMI information gives us a BIOS version string that can be matched against if a fixed version is ever released. I'd be in favour of doing it with DMI on the grounds that it's how we already handle machine-specific quirks rather than adding new code to do it. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- 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
