* Len Brown <lenb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mon, 10 Nov 2008, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 01:56:30PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > * Matthew Garrett <mjg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > or something. Microsoft appear to have moved away from using date > > > > cutoffs for anything other than whether or not to enable ACPI in the > > > > first place, and we ought to attempt compatibility with them. > > > > > > okay, that's fine to me too. My main point is that we need something > > > nuanced this time around (be it a string check or a cutoff) - not the > > > "enable again" patch that i saw in the ACPI tree and which i had to > > > NAK. > > > > All we need now is confirmation as to which versions of Windows use this > > behaviour. > > We knows XP and Vista do it. > > But upstream doesn't currently check the FADT.flags.reset-reg-supported bit > due to a recent bad guess on my part on how to be bug compatible with > windows. > > The (revert) patch to add that check is in my tree, along with > the trivial patch to flip the default to acpi-reset. > > Technically, that is the only "unanced" thing we should need > to check. However, it will not fix Avi's box, where it appears > that flag is present, the reset works, but for some reason the > keyboard fails after reset. More likely that is a device driver > issue specific to Linux interacting with "unexpected" BIOS behavior. hm, will that also fix Andrey's box? > Ingo, > If you don't mind, I'd like to continue to keep a version > of the acpi-reset-default patch in my test tree so that > it is seen by linux-next. Once I have something that > I think merits upstream inclusion, I'll send a request > to you. Will that work? It's fine to me - although i'm a bit uncomfortable about keeping a known breakage in linux-next. linux-next is not really there to experiment around, it's there to push the known stable stuff to. linux-next has enough trouble with _unintended_ breakages. At least that's how i push patches to linux-next - i've Cc:-ed Stephen and Andrew if there's a clarification needed. But i _think_ we should be fine even with the KVM related reboot problems if we insert the CF9 sequence right before the triple fault. Ingo -- 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
