On Sunday, 29 of June 2008, Matthew Garrett wrote: > 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. I violently agree. 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
