From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Renninger Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ACPI thermal: Check for thermal zone requiremen Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 10:50:27 +0100 Message-ID: <201002201050.28035.trenn@suse.de> References: <1266357351-20224-1-git-send-email-trenn@suse.de> <201002191737.49957.trenn@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:48133 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755305Ab0BTJtg (ORCPT ); Sat, 20 Feb 2010 04:49:36 -0500 In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Len Brown Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Saturday 20 February 2010 05:57:30 am Len Brown wrote: > On Fri, 19 Feb 2010, Thomas Renninger wrote: > i agree with the 1st patch, > as I said, if it built cleanly (hint hint) I'd apply it. Coming soon. > > Now you need at least one. > > > > My patch sticks to the spec and only discards the thermal zone if there > > is no trip point at all. In this case you want to throw a (firmware bug) > > message as something is obviously wrong. > > This is the non-obvious part. > Yes, a thermal zone that has no trip point doesn't follow the spec. > I don't know if any exist or not, but I don't see any harm if they do. > I think it would be dandy for linuxfirmware test kit to look > for this BIOS issue, but I don't see how the user is helped > if the kernel looks for it. All the get is an additional > kernel message and perhaps the loss of the ability to > tell the temperature when perhaps they could before. > That doesn't sound like a step forward. Thinking about this again: I fully agree. Just ignore the 2nd patch. Thanks, Thomas