From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758609AbXGaK5l (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Jul 2007 06:57:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755074AbXGaK5e (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Jul 2007 06:57:34 -0400 Received: from mail.bmlv.gv.at ([193.171.152.37]:58263 "EHLO mail.bmlv.gv.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754825AbXGaK5d (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Jul 2007 06:57:33 -0400 From: "Ph. Marek" To: Gabriel C Subject: Re: acpi=off vs. blacklist Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 12:57:16 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org References: <200707311235.53302.philipp.marek@bmlv.gv.at> <46AF10BF.2090303@googlemail.com> In-Reply-To: <46AF10BF.2090303@googlemail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200707311257.16983.philipp.marek@bmlv.gv.at> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Dienstag, 31. Juli 2007, Gabriel C wrote: > [ added linux-acpi to CC ] Sorry, forgot to mention: I'd like to use 2.6.20.1, but I already tested with 2.6.22.1. IIUC if there's a problem with the ACPI tables, the blacklist won't help, because to know whether the ACPI blacklist applies ACPI tables must be parsed :-/ ? Regards, Phil