On Thu, 27 Sep 2007, Dave Jones wrote: > 'noacpi' isn't a standalone parameter, give it its prefix. > > Signed-off-by: Dave Jones <davej@xxxxxxxxxx> > > diff --git a/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt > index 4d175c7..a87bc58 100644 > --- a/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt > +++ b/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt > @@ -863,6 +863,10 @@ and is between 256 and 4096 characters. It is defined in the file > lasi= [HW,SCSI] PARISC LASI driver for the 53c700 chip > Format: addr:<io>,irq:<irq> > > + libata.noacpi [LIBATA] Disables use of ACPI in libata suspend/resume > + when set. > + Format: <int> > + if you're going to add that libata-related parm to the kernel parms file, wouldn't it make sense for consistency to add the other available boot-time parms from libata-core.c as well? it seems counter-productive to document only a subset of them from the same source file. rday p.s. as i think i've mentioned before, i'd prefer to see that entire kernel-parameters.txt file reorganized, where the basic boot time parms are at the top, followed by module specific parameters *after* that, in alphabetical order by module name. i think that would make far more sense. -- ======================================================================== Robert P. J. Day Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA http://crashcourse.ca ======================================================================== - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
