From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Nick Bartos" Subject: Re: acpi=force safe? Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 15:49:12 -0600 (CST) Sender: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org Message-ID: <40747.65.164.3.3.1076104152.squirrel@mail.diamondcpu.com> References: <3ACA40606221794F80A5670F0AF15F8401CBB685@PDSMSX403.ccr.corp.intel.com> <16644.65.164.3.3.1076087775.squirrel@mail.diamondcpu.com> <20040206211334.GH13262@poupinou.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20040206211334.GH13262-kk6yZipjEM5g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org> Errors-To: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: To: acpi-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org > > Why not let user decide at boot time? That easy to do so with syslinux > for example. I do use syslinux, but these boxes are supposed to be shrink rapped solutions for customers where the user really just uses the web interface (and some of the boxes are headless), so having the user modify boot parm= s really isn't possible. Also, the entire distro is based on a single config and upgrading overrites the bootloader config, so setting user defined defaults really wouldn't work. As long as there aren't any changes in the linux acpi implementation that make a board stop working on an upgrade (obviously it will be tested on the inital install), then it should be fine. How probable is it for that to happen? If the hardware is unchanged I would hope that updating the kernel (with acpi=3Dforce) wouldn't prevent the system from booting. ------------------------------------------------------- The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004 Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA. http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn