On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 04:47:51PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Tue, 2018-07-03 at 17:17 +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > On 3 July 2018 at 10:44, Ian Campbell <ijc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Thu, 2018-06-28 at 12:25 +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > > > I understand the desire to keep running these M400s as long as they > > > > have some life left in them, but the reality is that they are end of > > > > life already, and not many were manufactured to begin with. > > > > > > Linux has a long history of supporting such devices so long as there is > > > someone around willing to keep them running (witness for example how > > > long x86/voyager lived with just 1 in existence in a motivated > > > developer's basement, probably some number of entire architectures and > > > I bet a not insubstantial chunk of the platform support in arch/arm). > > > > > > > I wonder how many such quirks fall into the 'user cannot be bothered > > to add a kernel command line option' category. > > I don't know the overall picture, but the very first one I happened to > look at in arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c (picked by grepping for quirk > and looking for acpi) just now was half a dozen quirks setting > acpi_skip_timer_override which is also settable on the command line. > There's also a bunch in there which just disable ACPI completely which > is also possible on the command line. > > My gut feeling is that these are the rule not the exception. > > > > So, I think DMI quirks are probably, in reality, inevitable unless > > > you > > > think firmware authors are going to be infaliable or the > > > testing/certification suites never has any gaps in it. > > > > > > > Oh, obviously. But this is exactly my point about flood gates: we know > > we need implement support for them, but that fact alone does not > > justify adding quirks for dead platforms for issues that can be > > trivially worked around. > > Is m400 really dead? There certainly seem to be people around who care > about keeping it running and have access to them. I do not think anybody is preventing that, it is just that we do not see the reason for adding a DMI quirk to the mainline kernel to enable a platform with broken firmware that cripples one of the main feature it is supposed to implement, we can go on forever about this but that's the gist. Thanks, Lorenzo -- 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
