On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 05:58:37PM -0600, Thomas Renninger wrote: > On Monday 10 November 2008 06:58:56 pm Matthew Garrett wrote: > > I've now had confirmation from multiple sources that Vista still uses > > the 32-bit addresses for the GPE blocks. > Are you sure that Windows Server implementations also use 32-bit addresses? Yes. > Are you sure that upcoming Windows implementations will always use 32-bit > addresses? I'm sure that Microsoft will not break widespread hardware, yes. > Do all X86 machines support Windows or could there be machines, especially > servers which only support Mac OS, Solaris/Linux or other OSes which stick to > the spec which you break with this change? Do you have any examples of machines that this would break? > > We're actually seeing the same > > bug on some currently shipping machines > Which ones? Various workstations from HP. > I also disagree with violating the spec unconditionally, breaking machines > which would stick to it. It's likely that machines do not get a latest > mainline kernel tests. Once this change is in distributions and machines do > break, people are busted. There should at least be a boot param to switch > back. *Which* machines would this break? Who would put a good value in the 64-bit field and a bad one in the 32-bit field? Note that the patch checks whether the 32-bit field is unset and whether the 64-bit field refers to system IO space. > We might come away with it. But I have the strong feeling that there are > machines running better using 32-bit and machines running better with 64-bit > addresses used. If you can find a single example of the latter case, I'll be astonishingly surprised. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- 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
