On Thu, 27 Dec 2007, Robert Hancock wrote: > > I doubt they would prefer the later ordering in any way that matters, if the > Windows version they were designed for uses the earlier ordering. Well, I wouldn't say it's abotu "preferring" one over the other. It's very possible that the BIOS writers were *intending* to prefer ACPI 2.0, and it may even be likely that they thought that they wrote it that way, but the real issue is that it has apparently never ever been *tested* that way. So yes, maybe the vendors actually thought they were a good ACPI-2.0 implementation, but if Windows doesn't do the ordering that the 2.0 spec expects, then that is pretty much just a theoretical thing. But yeah, it would be really nice to have this verified some way. Somebody must already know (whether it's a VM person or a BIOS writer, and whether they'd tell us, is obviously another issue). Linus _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
