> On Sat, 8 May 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > To calrify, I think the approach in the Matthew's patch is correct, but since I have > > some bad experience with that particular thing, I prefer to make that change in > > 2.6.35 and then move on to drop the flag entirely. > > Oh,yes. I'm not suggesting we do it late in the -rc cycle. > > I just don't think the DMI table is a good idea, so in the longer run I > wan tto get rid of it, rather than have it grow (by quite a few entries, > in this case). > > There are valid reasons for DMI tables in many cases, but in this case I > think the reason is simply that we do the wrong thing, so then we ended up > with a DMI table to "fix" the wrong thing we do. Hi Linus, Matthew, Rafael and I all agree with you on every aspect of this issue. The DMI list is temporary. Matthew's patch to do as you say is already queued for 2.6.35. I belive that Rafael was prudent in recommending we delay the "real" fix until .35, as we discovered that the broken machines suffered a 3-second delay on resume, polling for the SCI_EN that the BIOS would never set, and so the proposed fix for that is queued for 2.6.35 as well. thanks, -Len -- 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
