On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 08:08:09AM +0800, Li, Yan wrote: > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 03:51:01AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 09:01:40AM +0800, Li, Yan I wrote: > > > This seems a change too aggressive for me. Do we have a good reason > > > for taking this risk? > > > > It's generally much easier to find regressions (people complain) than it > > is to find things that have never worked (people just assume Linux is > > broken). > > That's true. But we are not sure how many regressions we'll meet and > whether the efforts devoted to handle them is worthy. (How to handle > regressions? Perhaps, ironically, we'll need another 'whitelist' for > them!) If we hit regressions then it's the wrong fix and would have to be reverted. Better a small blacklist than a large whitelist (though, in the general case, the presence of either is an indication of a bug) > > > Of course if we found the "actual problem" we'd conjure up a better > > > fix. But before that, I'd prefer the conservative way. > > > > Does stock Windows work on the machine? I think this really ought to be > > a pretty obvious minimal test before adding quirks to the kernel. > > Does this matter? Does whether Windows fail or not affect our > decision here? (Worse that I have no "stock Windows XP" for > testing. All I have are those companion Windows Recovery CDs that > include all drivers). Yes. If Windows works without hardware specific drivers then there's a flaw in our i8042 setup code that's affecting an unknown number of machines, and adding more entries to a static table tells us nothing about what proportion of those machines are now fixed - it just tells us that we've worked around the issue for the ones that Intel happen to be testing. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
