Brown, Len wrote:
Please then try the latest ACPI patch here:
>
http://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/lenb/acpi/patches
/release/2.6.13/acpi-20050902-2.6.13.diff.gz
> It should apply to vanilla 2.6.13 with a reject in ia64/Kconfig
> that you can ignore.
>
> If this works, then we munged git-acpi.patch in
2.6.13-mm1 somehow.
There were no problems with this patch applied. So it
looks like the
munge theory is correct.
That diff is significantly different from the diff I plucked from
master.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/lenb/linux-acpi-2.6
.git#test
for 2.6.13-mm1.
Doing (patch -R | grep FAILED) on 2.6.13-mm1 says:
Right.
2.6.13/acpi-20050902-2.6.13.diff.gz
is newers than 2.6.13-rc1's git-acpi.patch
2.6.13/acpi-20050815-2.6.13.diff.gz
is a closer match -- though not exact.
Peter, it might be illustrative if you have a moment
if you can also test 2.6.13/acpi-20050815-2.6.13.diff.gz
all by itself.
If it fails,
It does.
then I broke -mm1
with acpi-20050815-2.6.13.diff.gz, but fixed
it by acpi-20050902-2.6.13.diff.gz.
So you did.
If it succeeds, then the issue lies in the relatively small delta
between acpi-20050815-2.6.13.diff.gz 2.6.13-mm1's git-acpi.patch.
thanks,
-Len
My pleasure
Peter
--
Peter Williams pwil3058@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious."
-- Ambrose Bierce
-
: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
