From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add DMI quirk for Intel DP55KG mainboard Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 13:26:54 -0800 Message-ID: <4B45001E.7000404@zytor.com> References: <20100104162114.GA30113@percival.namespace.at> <4B4225B3.8070705@zytor.com> <20100104174558.158cd512@infradead.org> <20100106143640.GB13984@srcf.ucam.org> <20100106193608.GA21447@srcf.ucam.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:37325 "EHLO terminus.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932759Ab0AFVcX (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Jan 2010 16:32:23 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Len Brown Cc: Matthew Garrett , Arjan van de Ven , Christian Hofstaedtler , x86@kernel.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List , bruce.w.allan@intel.com, Thomas Gleixner , Justin Piszcz , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, Venkatesh Pallipadi On 01/06/2010 12:22 PM, Len Brown wrote: >> >> It's effectively guaranteed if the system is validated with Windows. > > today's common industry practice != future guarantee > > We can't rely on blind use of _OSI to mean "new enough", since > it was supported back in W2K era. That means we have to parse > the OSI strings. But what happens when a BIOS writer decides to > evaluate _OSI("Windows Future") without evaluating any of the > old strings we know about? We would disable ACPI reset on such > a future box? > What about using _OSI() with a *blacklist*, i.e. treat _OSI("Unknown String") as "new enough", whereas _OSI("Windows 2000") is ignored? -hpa