On Monday, July 15, 2013 01:34:27 PM Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Mon, 15 Jul 2013, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > On Monday 15 July 2013 12:06:11 Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > > On Mon, 15 Jul 2013, Thomas Renninger wrote: > > > > I would not make it too complicated. > > > > Sticking to the latest Windows version should be enough for this one. > > > > What bad should happen if we still try to resume and fail... > > > > > > Hmm, why was that check added in the first place? > > > > Safety. > > > > > If it is useless, > > > removing it for good is fine. If it is _not_ useless, we should still do > > > the checking when not operating in windows-8 firmware mode. > > > > Firmware will only be tested against Windows 8 pretty soon. > > We'd end up with a gigantic list of exceptions. > > No, we won't. We can query the ACPI core for the OSI compatibility level > requested by the firmware, and ignore the test only for win8. > > We still have 10 to 15 years worth of users using non-win8 firmware boxes on > x86/x86-64. But what's the risk from removing the check exactly for those systems? Rafael -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- 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
