On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 01:24:58PM -0500, Len Brown wrote: > On Wed, 17 Feb 2010, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > We seem to have no good history of where these blacklist entries came > > from, and we know that at least one of them is actively harmful. Perhaps > > replace them with a debug statement on affected machines telling people > > what they need to pass to restore the blacklist behaviour, and to let us > > know if it's necessary? > > Actually, it wasn't actively harmful until we broke "acpi=ht". > Indeed, it was actively helpful in pointing out that regression:-) The machines in question are falling back to apm, so probably losing some level of powersaving support. I'd say that's harmful :) > The other entries in today's acpi_dmi_table[] are less clear > and should probably be modified only with some care... At least one of them covers a single submodel in a range, despite them all running the same BIOS. I'd really lean towards them being bogus at this stage of the game. -- 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
