On 12/20/2013 02:53 AM, Thomas Renninger wrote: > On Thursday, December 19, 2013 08:22:08 PM H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> On 12/19/2013 08:05 PM, joeyli wrote: >>> Then that means the priority of PNP0B0x is higher then "CMOS RTC Not >>> Present" flag. ACPI spec doesn't have clear definition on this. >> >> According to the Microsoft requirements documents, such a platform is >> broken and shouldn't exist. > > Is this a public document? > Probably not but if, a pointer in this thread would help. > Does Microsoft mention ACPI Time and Alarm Device interface in > such a document already? > This is the document... I can't remember who sent me the link to it: http://goo.gl/R7S9Mk -hpa -- 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
