From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: [PATCH]: ACPI: Skip the power state check in power transition Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 14:08:05 +0100 Message-ID: <20090513130803.GA27522@srcf.ucam.org> References: <1242106060.3773.216.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200905120857.40058.bjorn.helgaas@hp.com> <1242184384.3773.241.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([93.93.128.6]:39591 "EHLO vavatch.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754906AbZEMNIL (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 May 2009 09:08:11 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1242184384.3773.241.camel@localhost.localdomain> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: yakui_zhao Cc: Bjorn Helgaas , "lenb@kernel.org" , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 11:13:04AM +0800, yakui_zhao wrote: > In fact this object is defined in ACPI spec. And we had better follow > that. IMO Linux ACPI does the right thing. > The boot option of "acpi.power_nocheck" is only to make Linux be > compatible with windows. The default behaviour should be to be compatible with Windows, regardless of what the spec says. There's an argument for providing a strict interpretation of the spec for testing purposes, but I don't see any reason for it to be split up into dozens of individual kernel parameters. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org