From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI: Adjust the return value of _REV on x86 Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 21:01:40 +0000 Message-ID: <20150316210140.GA4678@srcf.ucam.org> References: <1426150247-18309-1-git-send-email-matthew.garrett@nebula.com> <55073E50.3010309@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([93.93.128.6]:56166 "EHLO cavan.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751247AbbCPVBn (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Mar 2015 17:01:43 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <55073E50.3010309@redhat.com> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Al Stone Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net, lenb@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 02:34:24PM -0600, Al Stone wrote: > More a philosophical question -- the patch seems fine to me, personally, and > for arm64, we have to have >= 5 anyway -- but would it make sense to just not > acknowledge _REV and deprecate it from the kernel and the spec? I'm already > trying to get rid of _OSI because of such silliness and force requests to _OSC > where they should be (granted, it will take some time...). A bunch of systems verify that _REV returns >= 2 and change EC behaviour based on that, so killing it in the near term is unfortunately probably not an option. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org