From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: Asus P1-AH2 won't suspend (regression) Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2008 20:48:26 +0100 Message-ID: <200801052048.27025.rjw@sisk.pl> References: <20080104144238.GA5176@zoy.org> <200801052030.30862.rjw@sisk.pl> <20080105193552.GB24267@srcf.ucam.org> 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]:57490 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756330AbYAETq0 (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Jan 2008 14:46:26 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20080105193552.GB24267@srcf.ucam.org> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Matthew Garrett Cc: Michel Lespinasse , Carlos Corbacho , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Saturday, 5 of January 2008, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 08:30:30PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > Yes, but we have quite a lot of systems working with the current code, so > > I'd like to give them a chance to use the post-1.0 ordering (just in case). Just to clarify: I'm going to change the default to the pre-2.0 ordering and add a boot option for switching the post-1.0 ordering. > If the vast majority of systems have never been vendor-tested with the > alternative ordering, then I don't see what it buys us. 1. Possibility to test the alternative ordering without hacking and recompiling the kernel. 2. Compatibility with future systems that will use the new odering. > We've a demonstrable case here of it causing a regression. Correct, but if the default is changed, I don't see a problem with leaving an option to do that. Thanks, Rafael