On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 02:53:35PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 12/09/2010 02:51 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: >> I'm afraid I don't understand your argument. The date cutoff would be on >> the order of 2001 (anything after this will have been tested with XP). >> The spec that defines this behaviour only came into existence in August >> 2000, and any older hardware will be missing the flag that indicates >> that this feature is supported. It doesn't seem realistic to believe >> that there's any real body of hardware that sets the flag but otherwise >> has a broken implementation. >> > > 2001 is probably a good date, then. > > It's pretty safe you'll see the bit being set on systems which are older > than that, even if it was not defined at the time it was created -- just > being garbage. That's par for the course in BIOS land. There's a revision field in the FADT. They'd need to simultaneously provide an incorrect revision *and* by pure luck set the 10th bit of a 32-bit register. Is it possible? Yes. Is it likely? No, and I don't see a benefit in adding extra code to force hardware into a less-tested configuration. -- 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
