From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: [patch 7/7] acpi: remove old blacklist entries Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 18:31:08 +0000 Message-ID: <20100217183108.GA23189@srcf.ucam.org> References: <201002022238.o12Mbx54018702@imap1.linux-foundation.org> <20100216154053.GA31195@srcf.ucam.org> <20100217143245.GA18411@srcf.ucam.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([93.93.128.6]:38257 "EHLO cavan.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750801Ab0BQSbR (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Feb 2010 13:31:17 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Len Brown Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, arekm@maven.pl, feng.tang@intel.com, flinco@libero.it, mad_soft@inbox.ru, rjw@sisk.pl On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 01:24:58PM -0500, Len Brown wrote: > On Wed, 17 Feb 2010, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > We seem to have no good history of where these blacklist entries came > > from, and we know that at least one of them is actively harmful. Perhaps > > replace them with a debug statement on affected machines telling people > > what they need to pass to restore the blacklist behaviour, and to let us > > know if it's necessary? > > Actually, it wasn't actively harmful until we broke "acpi=ht". > Indeed, it was actively helpful in pointing out that regression:-) The machines in question are falling back to apm, so probably losing some level of powersaving support. I'd say that's harmful :) > The other entries in today's acpi_dmi_table[] are less clear > and should probably be modified only with some care... At least one of them covers a single submodel in a range, despite them all running the same BIOS. I'd really lean towards them being bogus at this stage of the game. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org