On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 10:02:04PM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Sun, 2014-06-01 at 22:45 +0200, Andreas Noever wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 6:07 PM, Matthew Garrett > > <matthew.garrett@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Yeah, it seems I don't need the suspend quirk - the NHI is still there > > > without it. I still think we should make the quirk general rather than > > > tying it to the machines, the worst case is that it'll just do nothing. > > Ok, agreed. The "wait" quirk has to run on all machines and the other > > one will fail if the ACPI methods are not there. Should I resend the > > series or just the patch or should I (or do you want to) make a > > separate patch? > > Probably best to ask Greg - I'm fine with this stuff going through his > tree (note to Greg: the Apple ACPI patches I just sent need to be merged > before this stuff will work properly) Ok, I'll still queue these up, I don't want the to be lost at all, and will wait for the ACPI patches to land before starting to complain that things don't work on my box :) thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
