On Monday, 11 of August 2008, Andi Kleen wrote: > On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 06:21:15PM +0800, Zhao Yakui wrote: > > On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 09:56 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > After the patch is applied, Linux will still do the power state check > > > > unless the boot option of "acpi.power_nocheck=1" is added. In such case > > > > it won't affect anything. > > > > > > Understood that. > > > > > > > In fact we expect that the boot option of "acpi.power_nocheck=1" becomes > > > > the default. But we will have to wait for more response. Only after more > > > > tests are done, it will be OK. > > > > > > Ok. > > > > > > > what the init sequence ordering for .27 means? > > > > > > The first patch moved acpi_device_set_context to be earlier, so > > > the init sequence is different. All the other changes are optional, > > > as in conditional on the flag, but that one is not. > > Although the acpi_device_set_context is moved to the earlier in the > > first patch, it won't break anything. > > Well they always say that :) But I'll double check. FWIW, I'd feel much more comfortable if this goes into 2.6.28 rather than into 2.6.27, the main reason being that there are many suspend-related changes in 2.6.27 that can potentially break things. In particular, there are the PCI-ACPI patches related to wake-up that may interfere whith this change (low probability, but still). 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
