Re: Status of ACPI PIC mode patches ?

Re: Status of ACPI PIC mode patches ?

[Len Brown]

On Tue, 2004-03-30 at 04:35, O.Sezer wrote:
> Hello:
> [Please CC me on replies]
> 
> What is the status of PIC mode patches [1] by Andrew de Quincey;
> are they still needed? The -ac / -pac trees still have them.

If the 1st one is needed, I want to know about it.
The 2nd and 3rd have been in for a long time.

> [1] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=106280426300001&r=1&w=2
> Also see:

This is Andrew's PIC-fallback patch.  This is probably
the most effective and well written patch that I've
refused to integrate;-)  There are two reasons.
1. it works for some systems, but breaks others.
2. when it works, it hides a failure.  Windows doesn't
have that failure.  We'd rather see the failure, fix it
and have Linux work as well as Windows.

BTW. SuSE picked up this patch in SL9.0, though I don't
know if they still use it.
 
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=106280426300002&r=1&w=2

This has been in the base for about 5 months.  But
Luming Yu found a better way to handle this issue and
his patch was integrated into 2.4 and 2.6 in the
last week:
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1590

We'll probably delete the original retry code
in an upcoming cleanup.

> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=106280426100003&r=1&w=2

This patch by Jun Nakajima was pulled into the base
about 5 months ago.  It was key to getting VIA systems
to work.

cheers,
-Len

Status of ACPI PIC mode patches ?

[O.Sezer]

Hello:
[Please CC me on replies]

What is the status of PIC mode patches [1] by Andrew de Quincey;
are they still needed? The -ac / -pac trees still have them.

Regards;
Özkan Sezer

[1] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=106280426300001&r=1&w=2
Also see:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=106280426300002&r=1&w=2
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=106280426100003&r=1&w=2