On Saturday 20 February 2010 05:57:30 am Len Brown wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Feb 2010, Thomas Renninger wrote:
> i agree with the 1st patch,
> as I said, if it built cleanly (hint hint) I'd apply it.
Coming soon.
> > Now you need at least one.
> >
> > My patch sticks to the spec and only discards the thermal zone if there
> > is no trip point at all. In this case you want to throw a (firmware bug)
> > message as something is obviously wrong.
>
> This is the non-obvious part.
> Yes, a thermal zone that has no trip point doesn't follow the spec.
> I don't know if any exist or not, but I don't see any harm if they do.
> I think it would be dandy for linuxfirmware test kit to look
> for this BIOS issue, but I don't see how the user is helped
> if the kernel looks for it. All the get is an additional
> kernel message and perhaps the loss of the ability to
> tell the temperature when perhaps they could before.
> That doesn't sound like a step forward.
Thinking about this again:
I fully agree.
Just ignore the 2nd patch.
Thanks,
Thomas
--
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
