On Sunday 20 December 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Sun, 20 Dec 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > OK, so this means we can just forget about suspending/resuming i8042 > > asynchronously, which is a pity, because that gave us some real suspend > > speedup on my test systems. > > No. What it means is that you shouldn't try to come up with these idiotic > scenarios just trying to make trouble for yourself, I haven't. I've just asked Dmitry for his opinion and got it. The fact that you don't like it doesn't mean it's actually "idiotic". > and using it as an excuse for crap. I'm not sure what you mean exactly, but whatever. > I suggest you try to treat the i8042 controller async, and see if it is > problematic. I already have and I don't see problems with it, but quite obviously I can't test all possible configurations out there. > If it isn't, don't do that then. But we actually have no real > reason to believe that it would be problematic, at least on a PC where the > actual logic is on the SB (presumably behind the LPC controller). > > Why would it be? The embedded controller may depend on it. 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
