From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756482Ab0ENQmP (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 May 2010 12:42:15 -0400 Received: from mail-pz0-f204.google.com ([209.85.222.204]:52648 "EHLO mail-pz0-f204.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750876Ab0ENQmM (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 May 2010 12:42:12 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=DVsAHGezp6UfsR1C6aT+Z1qF5Th0+BTQd4EPx0yVLdkq8NItk0UJXz5w6jNv/TcxsM 5wUzcyhpNdQFoqNnQeCB1e1aXxRnP9WxKwQfFuvQH9e1DnflAPDYtaPPJoV0/xQbS+kR U5pzA4h7qMU+Qq88hCLAqGgEckiqSWmn0Ban4= Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 09:42:01 -0700 From: Dmitry Torokhov To: Matthew Garrett Cc: linux-input@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] input: Default to only using PNP for i8042 probing on x86 Message-ID: <20100514164200.GD31607@core.coreip.homeip.net> References: <1273853403-2870-1-git-send-email-mjg@redhat.com> <1273853403-2870-3-git-send-email-mjg@redhat.com> <20100514163158.GC31607@core.coreip.homeip.net> <20100514163643.GB7843@srcf.ucam.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100514163643.GB7843@srcf.ucam.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 05:36:43PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 09:31:59AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 12:10:03PM -0400, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > Experimenting with Windows has revealed that it will not probe the > > > keyboard controller unless a valid PNPACPI device is present. Change our > > > behaviour to match, and add a new i8042.forcedprobe parameter to allow > > > people to override it. > > > > > > > i8042.nopnp would not do? > > It could - it wouldn't be quite semantically equivalent, but I don't see > why it wouldn't work. > I think they are exactly equivalent - "piss on what PNP says, bang the ports directly". -- Dmitry