Re: [patch 1/1] acpi: fix asus_acpi on Samsung P30/P35

[Karol Kozimor <sziwan-DETuoxkZsSqrDJvtcaxF/A@public.gmane.org>]

Thus wrote Brown, Len:
> Due to necessary bug compatibility with MS, we're stuck with
> the implicit return workaround behaviour for the forseeable future.

I suppose so.

> acpi=struct exists so that OEMs can use Linux (and ACPICA)
> to test their BIOS.  Linux should do the right thing with
> or without it -- but I would expect it to be enabled only in
> the test lab in practice.
> 
> Note that in any case, acpi_strict is not intended to be
> changed at run-time -- for who knows what other workarounds
> other threads may be in the middle of when it might be changed...

That's exactly the reason I didn't push this concept further. Having a Big
ACPI Lock to accompany BKL is an interesting idea, but I doubt it would
catch on. OTOH, it would be nice to have 'my laptop boots with acpi=strict'
stickers to give out on trade shows. People would love it.

> The only question is what to do for 2.6.14/15 stable.
> A. apply this patch after it is tested in 2.6.16?
> B. wait for an update to replace this patch?

Ugh, 5 am is not exactly the best time to sound clear and concise. What I
meant was, in short:
1. The patch applied to acpi-test is sufficient for stable (i.e. 2.6.15.x).
2. I will provide another patch for acpi-test with my next batch of
   updates. These will go into 2.6.16, .17 or whatever. Until this time,
   however, the patch supplied stays at acpi-test.

Best regards,

-- 
Karol 'sziwan' Kozimor
sziwan-DETuoxkZsSqrDJvtcaxF/A@public.gmane.org
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html