From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI: Make Embedded Controller command timeout delay configurable Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 01:43:24 +0200 Message-ID: <201010230143.24858.rjw@sisk.pl> References: <201010211824.57893.trenn@suse.de> <201010222322.00618.rjw@sisk.pl> <201010230046.06637.trenn@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:45630 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751225Ab0JVXo0 (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Oct 2010 19:44:26 -0400 In-Reply-To: <201010230046.06637.trenn@suse.de> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Thomas Renninger Cc: Len Brown , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Saturday, October 23, 2010, Thomas Renninger wrote: > On Friday 22 October 2010 11:22:00 pm Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Friday, October 22, 2010, Len Brown wrote: > > > applied > > > > OK > > > > What if I do ec_delay=0 ? > Same as with quite some other boot params: > Your machine won't boot. > > Why should this be a problem? Because your intention is to allow the users to _increase_ the delay and not to decrease it. Decreasing it is known dangerous, so why don't you simply put a limit in there? I know there are many boot params that will hurt you if not used with care, but is that a sufficient reason for adding another one? Rafael