From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [RESEND] [PATCH 2/3] Introduce acpi_root_table=rsdt boot param and dmi list to force rsdt Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 16:25:46 +0200 Message-ID: <200810211625.47889.rjw@sisk.pl> References: <200810192350.57993.trenn@suse.de> <200810211601.56527.rjw@sisk.pl> <20081021140014.GA29330@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]:53584 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751719AbYJUOVV (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Oct 2008 10:21:21 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20081021140014.GA29330@srcf.ucam.org> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Matthew Garrett Cc: Thomas Renninger , Henrique de Moraes Holschuh , Len Brown , linux-acpi , Zhao Yakui , me@markdoughty.co.uk, linux-thinkpad , "devel@acpica.org" On Tuesday, 21 of October 2008, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 04:01:55PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > Moreover, as soon as the real fix is developed we can remove the DMI list. > > Quite frankly, I don't see any downsides. > > The downside is that with the DMI list there's significantly less > incentive to produce a "real" fix (assuming there is one). I really don't think it works this way. As long as there only are a few machines in the list, the incentive is very small in either case. However, as the number of machines in the list grows, it will produce pressure to fix things. [That's exactly what happened in the case of the Turion-based HP BIOS issue.] > We've no idea how many other systems may be affected in one way or another. Yes, and the list may help us to get an idea IMO.