From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] ACPI: add DMI to enable OSI(Linux) on ThinkPad T61 Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:28:32 +0000 Message-ID: <20080117122832.GB32133@srcf.ucam.org> References: <0bf08de2227cabeb40a6ea72b3fa188a2e325335.1200565331.git.len.brown@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([78.32.9.130]:38010 "EHLO vavatch.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751780AbYAQM2u (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Jan 2008 07:28:50 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <0bf08de2227cabeb40a6ea72b3fa188a2e325335.1200565331.git.len.brown@intel.com> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Len Brown Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, Len Brown On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 05:24:50AM -0500, Len Brown wrote: > + { > + .callback = dmi_enable_osi_linux, > + .ident = "Lenovo ThinkPad T61", > + .matches = { > + DMI_MATCH(DMI_SYS_VENDOR, "LENOVO"), > + DMI_MATCH(DMI_PRODUCT_VERSION, "ThinkPad T61"), > + }, > + }, > + If we add it for specific devices, aren't vendors going to assume that future versions of that device will also be able to rely on this behaviour? I'm very reluctant to add whitelisting - I suspect it makes more sense for us to just be compatible with Windows. My experiments with the T61 suggested that it was possible to get everything working without this, but I'll need to go back and check what the behaviour actually was to be sure. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org