Re: [git pull request] ACPI patches for 2.6.34-rc6

[Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>]

> On Sat, 8 May 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > 
> > To calrify, I think the approach in the Matthew's patch is correct, but since I have
> > some bad experience with that particular thing, I prefer to make that change in
> > 2.6.35 and then move on to drop the flag entirely.
> 
> Oh,yes. I'm not suggesting we do it late in the -rc cycle. 
> 
> I just don't think the DMI table is a good idea, so in the longer run I 
> wan tto get rid of it, rather than have it grow (by quite a few entries, 
> in this case).
> 
> There are valid reasons for DMI tables in many cases, but in this case I 
> think the reason is simply that we do the wrong thing, so then we ended up 
> with a DMI table to "fix" the wrong thing we do.

Hi Linus,
Matthew, Rafael and I all agree with you on every aspect of this issue.

The DMI list is temporary.  Matthew's patch to do as you say
is already queued for 2.6.35.

I belive that Rafael was prudent in recommending we delay
the "real" fix until .35, as we discovered that the broken
machines suffered a 3-second delay on resume, polling for the SCI_EN
that the BIOS would never set, and so the proposed fix for that 
is queued for 2.6.35 as well.

thanks,
-Len