On Sunday 04 October 2009, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote: > Hi Rafael, Alex, > This is not my rule, it was/is the rule of power device class. If you do not agree to it, please change > appropriate documentation. I think we're talking about two different things. One thing is that we shouldn't put any _arbitrary_ interpretation rules into the kernel, which I agree with. The other one is that if there's a _known_ _broken_ hardware and one possible way of handling it is to add a quirk into the kernel, we should at least consider doing that. In my opinion adding a quirk for a broken hardware is not equivalent to "inferring not available properties using some heuristics or mathematical model", if that's what you're referring to. That said, the patch should not change the _default_ code in order to handle the quirky hardware correctly. IMO, the quirky hardware should be recognized during initialisation, if possible, and later handled in a special way. If it's not possible to detect the broken hardware reliably, I agree that there's nothing we can do about that in the kernel. 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
