On Thu, 9 Oct 2008, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 08:59:15AM +0800, Zhang Rui wrote: > > On Wed, 2008-10-08 at 12:26 -0700, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > A patch went into the kernel earlier this year to ignore critical trip > > > points that were below 0. > > well, I think this patch is wrong. > > a critical trip point below 0 Celsius doesn't mean it's invalid. > > I think it's pretty clear that a critical trip point below 0 celsius > means that the critical trip point is invalid, though I agree that > ignoring the entire thermal zone as a result is somewhat unfortunate. > > > windows can work well on this laptop. > > please look at: > > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10686#c13 > > IMO, we need to fix the ACPICA code first of all. > > > > Ming, what do you think of the patch in comment #15 and #16? > > We could quibble over the technical correctness of this approach, but it > seems to behave in exactly the same way - ie, Linux will ignore the > thermal zone? The existing code seems fine, other than the fact that a > bad _CRT will result everything failing. I think we'd be better off just > losing the return -ENODEV there and try to use as much of the thermal > information as we can. right, when we put in the workaround we observed that a bad _CRT would delete an entire thermal zone, and that could be a big problem on a box with active cooling on that thermal zone. of course if we are successful on the implicit return front, this becomes unnecessary. -Len -- 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
