From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: SF Markus Elfring Subject: Re: platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi: Adjustments for four function implementations Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2018 09:55:31 +0100 Message-ID: References: <81459d11-693a-eb51-9173-9c189677f422@users.sourceforge.net> <20171223014033.jx7fzu7uzjfbzyca@khazad-dum.debian.net> <80ae8328-5851-01b0-cb31-474f7baf1686@users.sourceforge.net> <20180103001034.GC24794@fury> <9ea2c1c7-a07d-19c3-a2dc-0c69352d9558@users.sourceforge.net> <20180106012634.GB5260@fury> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from mout.web.de ([212.227.15.14]:64526 "EHLO mout.web.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752633AbeAFI4H (ORCPT ); Sat, 6 Jan 2018 03:56:07 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20180106012634.GB5260@fury> Content-Language: en-GB Sender: platform-driver-x86-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Darren Hart , ibm-acpi-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org Cc: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh , Andy Shevchenko , Andy Shevchenko , Henrique de Moraes Holschuh , LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org > If this was code that affected all systems, the impact would be greater > - and it would be much easier to test. I can follow such a view to some degree. Would you dare to test the deletion of questionable error messages more with any other software components? > As it applies only to Thinkpad systems, Are these models still popular enough in any areas? > far fewer total systems are affected, and it is much harder to > test/verify. Do you care for the suggested transformation patterns (in principle)? > If you feel that is the wrong call, It seems that the usual indication was expressed for change resistance. > you will need to present convincing evidence to Henrique that > this is worth the risk. Which risks have you got in mind for this small adjustment? > … - or that it would be worth the effort. Can a bit of “software fine-tuning” become useful also here? Regards, Markus