From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: joeyli Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI:remove panic in case hardware has changed after S4 Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 21:59:33 +0800 Message-ID: <1373896773.6260.28.camel@linux-s257.site> References: <1373544870-15135-1-git-send-email-oliver@neukum.org> <6802146.fKe43BS873@skinner.arch.suse.de> <1373618715.7539.106.camel@linux-s257.site> <5742401.D3Ye1zZPh5@linux-5eaq.site> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from smtp.nue.novell.com ([195.135.221.5]:40114 "EHLO smtp.nue.novell.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756735Ab3GON7f (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Jul 2013 09:59:35 -0400 In-Reply-To: <5742401.D3Ye1zZPh5@linux-5eaq.site> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Oliver Neukum Cc: Thomas Renninger , lenb@kernel.org, rjw@sisk.pl, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org =E6=96=BC =E4=B8=80=EF=BC=8C2013-07-15 =E6=96=BC 13:29 +0200=EF=BC=8COl= iver Neukum =E6=8F=90=E5=88=B0=EF=BC=9A > On Friday 12 July 2013 16:45:15 joeyli wrote: >=20 > > Per information from OEM, Windows 8 didn't really block S4 resume w= hen > > hardware_signature not match, I think as Oliver's patch. >=20 > Is that confidential information? > =20 > If it is indeed true, introducing a blacklist makes no sense. And I > see no alternative to my patch. Should I resubmit with an improved > comment? >=20 > Regards > Oliver >=20 It's not confidential but non-official from OEM. I looking for a additional DRAM module to test this behavior on my Acer machine.=20 Thank Joey Lee -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html