On Tuesday, 21 of October 2008, Thomas Renninger wrote: > On Tuesday 21 October 2008 15:08:36 Matthew Garrett wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 03:05:33PM +0200, Thomas Renninger wrote: > > > Even if this is not proven, the patchset should still go in to get the > > > machines fixed for now and to easily test others, there was enough > > > discussion around it. > > > > What do you mean, "fixed"? They all already work, even if it's in a > > suboptimal way. > > If C-states don't work and do work with a patch. I call the patch a fix. > I also call the machine broken (even if it does boot) before and fixed > afterwards. If not a fix, this certainly is improvement. > I also call a machine broken which takes minutes to boot and fixed as soon as > the problem is solved and the machine is booting in a reasonable amount of > time. I haven't followed the discussion closely, but IMO it's better to have the machines in a usable state right now than wait for a "real fix" forever. Moreover, as soon as the real fix is developed we can remove the DMI list. Quite frankly, I don't see any downsides. 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
