On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 04:48:24PM -0500, Mario Limonciello wrote: > The problems were exposed on newer XPS laptops because those platforms > were not tested during platform development. There really isn't a > scalable way to represent whether a platform was or wasn't tested > during development. In a lot of situation things just work. I would > like to do the right thing for the users with what information and > resources are available right now to put them in a better state. An > aggressive approach of not taking patches to cover a broken interface > won't fix the problem of not testing machines already in the market, > it will just put end users of the kernel module at a disadvantage. That's why it's better to just remove the interface. Providing a feature when we know it's broken on some unknown subset of hardware doesn't benefit anyone. If even Dell don't have any idea which set of machines it works on then how are we ever expected to make sure it's correct? > 1) Don't blacklist any Latitude or Vostro. These are tested during platform development. > 2) Leave those compal_laptop supported ones blacklisted. > 3) Blacklist 2010-2012 XPS. These are currently not tested during platform development. > 4) If problems start to show up on Inspiron, blacklist them invidually. These platforms are currently tested during platform development though, so hopefully issues don't crop up. Is this the set of criteria that the Windows tools use? If so, I'll implement it. If not, then either provide the set of criteria that the Windows tools use or I'll remove the interface. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe platform-driver-x86" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
