On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 09:47:39AM +0800, yakui_zhao wrote: > On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 21:08 +0800, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > The default behaviour should be to be compatible with Windows, > > regardless of what the spec says. There's an argument for providing a > > strict interpretation of the spec for testing purposes, but I don't > > see > > any reason for it to be split up into dozens of individual kernel > > parameters > The ACPI 1.0 spec is followed by windows XP. And the power state is not > checked in power transition under windows XP. > But we don't know whether it is still skipped on the new version > windows.(For example: Windows 7). > > If the module param is removed, we must delete the source code related > with power state check. And if the power state is checked in power > transition on windows 7, what we should do? It is not reasonable to add > them again. If Windows 7 changes the behaviour then the correct approach is to key this behaviour on whether the system firmware requests the Windows 7 OSI string. The code can be #if 0ed out until then, or placed under an acpi.strict kernel option that turns on all standards-compliant but windows-incompatible code. > Maybe it is better to determine whether the power state check is skipped > in power transition. We have a stated policy that Linux will default to being Windows compatible. You've demonstrated that in this case Linux isn't Windows compatible, which means that it's a bug. The correct behaviour for Linux here is to ignore the _STA value (or, indeed, not to call _STA at all in this path). -- 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
