From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: Fwd: [Bug 92111] Power regression from 3.17 to 3.18 and 3.19 Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 00:48:04 +0000 Message-ID: <20150211004804.GA14264@srcf.ucam.org> References: <1790277.SYbcblnshn@vostro.rjw.lan> <3544719.NIea3H3XJ4@vostro.rjw.lan> <20150211004212.GA14030@srcf.ucam.org> <1849097.2kV6tt7Itu@vostro.rjw.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([93.93.128.6]:41530 "EHLO cavan.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750918AbbBKAsH (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Feb 2015 19:48:07 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1849097.2kV6tt7Itu@vostro.rjw.lan> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Andreas Noever , ACPI Devel Maling List , attila.jakosa@gmail.com, Len Brown On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 02:09:17AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > We may be able to get that feedback, but what do you suggest we do in the > meantime? Nothing, I suppose? We have the choice between increased power consumption or broken Thunderbolt - either choice is going to upset somebody. My gut feeling is that leaving us at increased power consumption might encourage someone at Intel to try to fix things, whereas nobody at Intel is going to care about Thunderbolt hotplug. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org