Thomas Renninger <trenn@xxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>> That would be sad if the current blacklisting wasn't able to do such
>> checks on versions :(
> You could either:
> 1) add a whitelist into the blacklist
> 2) better limit the blacklist
> The first won't break machines, but is ugly.
I suppose some new algorithm would need to be written for that, and no easy
"struct definition" (like what is currently there) will be enough ?
> For the second you must know which BIOS(es) fix the acpi parts to not cause
> regressions and then list all broken BIOS revisions, e.g.:
> {
> .callback = force_acpi_ht,
> .ident = "ASUS P4B266",
> .matches = {
> DMI_MATCH(DMI_BOARD_VENDOR, "ASUSTeK Computer INC."),
> DMI_MATCH(DMI_BOARD_NAME, "P4B266"),
> DMI_MATCH(DMI_BOARD_VERSION, "ASUS P4B266 ACPI BIOS Revision 1007"),
> },
> },
> {
> .callback = force_acpi_ht,
> .ident = "ASUS P4B266",
> .matches = {
> DMI_MATCH(DMI_BOARD_VENDOR, "ASUSTeK Computer INC."),
> DMI_MATCH(DMI_BOARD_NAME, "P4B266"),
> DMI_MATCH(DMI_BOARD_VERSION, "ASUS P4B266 ACPI BIOS Revision 1008"),
> },
> },
>
> BTW, the same seem to have happened for the ASUS A7V:
> /*
> * Boxes that need ACPI PCI IRQ routing disabled
> */
> {
> .callback = disable_acpi_irq,
> .ident = "ASUS A7V",
> .matches = {
> DMI_MATCH(DMI_BOARD_VENDOR, "ASUSTeK Computer INC"),
> DMI_MATCH(DMI_BOARD_NAME, "<A7V>"),
> /* newer BIOS, Revision 1011, does work */
> DMI_MATCH(DMI_BIOS_VERSION,
> "ASUS A7V ACPI BIOS Revision 1007"),
> },
> },
>
Well, that lacks some version comparison operator to look clean to
me... which looks far from trivial considering the version formats
probably quite creative ;)
> One could argue that people have to upgrade to the latest BIOS
> and your patch is ok. This is IMO a valid argument, but it could be
> that people with a P4B266-SE board cannot upgrade to version 1010.
> I'd say, better leave the fingers off...
Yup.
>
>> Anyway, I suppose I will follow your advice and try and report people of
>> the acpi=force as I already started to do in
>> http://www.olivierberger.com/weblog/index.php?post/2009/03/28/Proper-power-management-on-Asus-P4B266-mainboard
> Everyone with such problems should easily be able to google the acpi=force
> param for this board then.
>
I'm thinking about some kind of warning message that might be provided
by the kernel.
Currently, the blacklisting issues something like :
xxx detected : force use of acpi=ht
Maybe in some greylisted cases (like such ASUS P4B266), an additional
message may be issued, something like :
xxx detected : may work with acpi=force (test at own risk)
or something like that ?
Btw, while we're at it, the first message is not so clear to me "force
use of acpi=ht" : I think it could be interpreted as "you may force ACPI
to work by passing acpi=ht" or something like that, as it tends to
indicate that it refers to an 'acpi=' parameter.
Maybe something like "forced 'ht' mode for acpi" or a similar variant
would be less ambiguous (pardon me, I'm not so sure what 'ht' means
here, btw).
Hope this helps,
--
Olivier BERGER
(OpenPGP: 1024D/B4C5F37F)
http://www.olivierberger.com/weblog/
--
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
