RE: [BK PATCH] ACPI updates

RE: [BK PATCH] ACPI updates

[Grover, Andrew]

> From: Pavel Machek [mailto:pavel@ucw.cz] 

I (Andy) said:
> > Well maybe that's what we should do - use the UnitedLinux 
> ACPI patch (which
> > iirc is based on fairly recent ACPI code, and presumably minimizes
> > ACPI-related breakage) and then proceed incrementally from there?
> > 
> > Sound OK? Marcelo? UL folks?

> I guess it will be better if you push acpi patch without killing those
> backup solutions. Extractign blacklist from UL might be worth it,
> through.

Well after communicating with Marcelo it sounds like he'd like to hold off
taking it in 2.4.21 because IDE changes take priority, and two big changes
at once is too many for a stable kernel revision.

Fair enough. I'm just worried that 2.4.22 is a long ways away.

Maybe one way to address Marcelo's stability concerns and Arjan's "keep
acpitable.[ch] around" preference is for me to submit a patch that I *know*
don't affect anything besides ACPI -- i.e. only the changes that have been
made under drivers/acpi, and then go from there, submitting UL-derived and
other improvements incrementally after that.

Thoughts?

Regards -- Andy

Re: [ACPI] RE: [BK PATCH] ACPI updates

[Hanno Böck]

> Well after communicating with Marcelo it sounds like he'd like to hold off
> taking it in 2.4.21 because IDE changes take priority, and two big changes
> at once is too many for a stable kernel revision.

I think this is a very bad news.
In my opinion, the ACPI-patch is the most-needed kernel-patch at the moment. For many laptop-users that don't know about this patch, Linux is nearly unuseable. And I already know at least two desktop-pcs that don't have any power-management without the acpi-patch.
Andrew, I hope you can find a way to make a patch that the kernel-people will accept as soon as possible.

-- 
Hanno Boeck - hanno@gmx.de               /"\
                                         \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign
Say no to DCMA, TCPA, Palladium!          X  Against HTML Mail
www.stop1984.com                         / \

Re: [ACPI] RE: [BK PATCH] ACPI updates

[Arjan van de Ven]

On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 12:59:43PM +0100, Hanno Böck wrote:
> > Well after communicating with Marcelo it sounds like he'd like to hold off
> > taking it in 2.4.21 because IDE changes take priority, and two big changes
> > at once is too many for a stable kernel revision.
> 

> I think this is a very bad news. In my opinion, the ACPI-patch
> is the most-needed kernel-patch at the moment. For many laptop-users
> that don't know about this patch, Linux is nearly
> unuseable. 

the 2.4 patch doesnt' actually offer suspend/resume capabilities; what
else did you have in mind as required ?

Re: [ACPI] RE: [BK PATCH] ACPI updates

[Matthew Wilcox]

On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 07:29:32AM -0500, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 12:59:43PM +0100, Hanno Böck wrote:
> > I think this is a very bad news. In my opinion, the ACPI-patch
> > is the most-needed kernel-patch at the moment. For many laptop-users
> > that don't know about this patch, Linux is nearly
> > unuseable. 
> 
> the 2.4 patch doesnt' actually offer suspend/resume capabilities; what
> else did you have in mind as required ?

booting?

-- 
"It's not Hollywood.  War is real, war is primarily not about defeat or
victory, it is about death.  I've seen thousands and thousands of dead bodies.
Do you think I want to have an academic debate on this subject?" -- Robert Fisk

Re: [ACPI] RE: [BK PATCH] ACPI updates

[Alan Cox]

On Fri, 2002-12-06 at 13:17, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > the 2.4 patch doesnt' actually offer suspend/resume capabilities; what
> > else did you have in mind as required ?
> 
> booting?

New compaqs, existing xmeta, new HP wont boot without the -ac IDE and
the workarounds for ATi or fixes for ALi IDE. (Users should try to avoid
the ati igp stuff for now btw - no X support, no pci routing support,
most kernels wont run on it, no docs)

Alan

Re: [BK PATCH] ACPI updates

[Pavel Machek]

Hi!

> I (Andy) said:
> > > Well maybe that's what we should do - use the UnitedLinux 
> > ACPI patch (which
> > > iirc is based on fairly recent ACPI code, and presumably minimizes
> > > ACPI-related breakage) and then proceed incrementally from there?
> > > 
> > > Sound OK? Marcelo? UL folks?
> 
> > I guess it will be better if you push acpi patch without killing those
> > backup solutions. Extractign blacklist from UL might be worth it,
> > through.
> 
> Well after communicating with Marcelo it sounds like he'd like to hold off
> taking it in 2.4.21 because IDE changes take priority, and two big changes
> at once is too many for a stable kernel revision.
> 
> Fair enough. I'm just worried that 2.4.22 is a long ways away.
> 
> Maybe one way to address Marcelo's stability concerns and Arjan's "keep
> acpitable.[ch] around" preference is for me to submit a patch that I *know*
> don't affect anything besides ACPI -- i.e. only the changes that have been
> made under drivers/acpi, and then go from there, submitting UL-derived and
> other improvements incrementally after that.

Yes, try that. Its certainly better than no ACPI update at all.
									Pavel
-- 
Casualities in World Trade Center: ~3k dead inside the building,
cryptography in U.S.A. and free speech in Czech Republic.

Re: [ACPI] RE: [BK PATCH] ACPI updates

[Marcelo Tosatti]

On Fri, 6 Dec 2002, Matthew Wilcox wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 07:29:32AM -0500, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 12:59:43PM +0100, Hanno Böck wrote:
> > > I think this is a very bad news. In my opinion, the ACPI-patch
> > > is the most-needed kernel-patch at the moment. For many laptop-users
> > > that don't know about this patch, Linux is nearly
> > > unuseable.
> >
> > the 2.4 patch doesnt' actually offer suspend/resume capabilities; what
> > else did you have in mind as required ?
>
> booting?

Which machines do not work without the new ACPI code?

Re: [ACPI] RE: [BK PATCH] ACPI updates

[Matthew Wilcox]

On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 02:09:04PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> Which machines do not work without the new ACPI code?

hp's zx1-based ia64 machines (my personal interest..) and i thought some
laptops required updated ACPI to boot.  also, aren't there some SMP x86
boxes with buggy bios tables that won't boot without ACPI?

-- 
"It's not Hollywood.  War is real, war is primarily not about defeat or
victory, it is about death.  I've seen thousands and thousands of dead bodies.
Do you think I want to have an academic debate on this subject?" -- Robert Fisk

Re: [ACPI] RE: [BK PATCH] ACPI updates

[Arjan van de Ven]

On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 07:12:52PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 02:09:04PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > Which machines do not work without the new ACPI code?
> 
> hp's zx1-based ia64 machines (my personal interest..) 

That one doesn't boot without other major patches anyway...

Re: [ACPI] RE: [BK PATCH] ACPI updates

[Jeff Garzik]

On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 07:12:52PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 02:09:04PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > Which machines do not work without the new ACPI code?
> 
> hp's zx1-based ia64 machines (my personal interest..) and i thought some
> laptops required updated ACPI to boot.  also, aren't there some SMP x86
> boxes with buggy bios tables that won't boot without ACPI?

There are several classes of machines that require ACPI to boot... a big
question is whether these machines need full ACPI or just acpitable.c,
too...

Re: [ACPI] RE: [BK PATCH] ACPI updates

[Bjorn Helgaas]

On Monday 09 December 2002 12:17 pm, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 07:12:52PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 02:09:04PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > > Which machines do not work without the new ACPI code?
> > 
> > hp's zx1-based ia64 machines (my personal interest..) 
> 
> That one doesn't boot without other major patches anyway...

Apart from ACPI, the non-ia64 patches required to boot a zx1
should be relatively small: some IRQ changes, support in
memmap_init for discontiguous memory, etc.

Having a newer ACPI in 2.4.x (it currently has 20011018!)
would make things much easier for ia64.