2004-09-16 15:57:16

by Arjan van de Ven

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: input: Disable the AUX LoopBack command in i8042.c on Compaq ProLiant

On Wed, 2004-06-02 at 13:44, Linux Kernel Mailing List wrote:
> ChangeSet 1.1722.87.1, 2004/06/02 13:44:20+02:00, [email protected]
>
> input: Disable the AUX LoopBack command in i8042.c on Compaq ProLiant
> 8-way Xeon ProFusion systems, as it causes crashes and reboots
> on these machines. DMI data is used for determining if the
> workaround should be enabled.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vojtech Pavlik <[email protected]>
>

is there any reason you do this in dmi_scan.c and not via the "new"
since some time method where the user gives the dmi code a table with
callbacks instead ????


Attachments:
signature.asc (189.00 B)
This is a digitally signed message part

2004-09-16 16:05:41

by Vojtech Pavlik

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: input: Disable the AUX LoopBack command in i8042.c on Compaq ProLiant

On Thu, Sep 16, 2004 at 05:52:57PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:

> On Wed, 2004-06-02 at 13:44, Linux Kernel Mailing List wrote:
> > ChangeSet 1.1722.87.1, 2004/06/02 13:44:20+02:00, [email protected]
> >
> > input: Disable the AUX LoopBack command in i8042.c on Compaq ProLiant
> > 8-way Xeon ProFusion systems, as it causes crashes and reboots
> > on these machines. DMI data is used for determining if the
> > workaround should be enabled.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Vojtech Pavlik <[email protected]>
> >
>
> is there any reason you do this in dmi_scan.c and not via the "new"
> since some time method where the user gives the dmi code a table with
> callbacks instead ????

There is no such reason other than on 06/02 there wasn't the "new"
method yet, as far as I know. In the same set of patches:

[email protected], 2004-06-29 11:59:04+02:00, [email protected]
input: Move Compaq ProLiant DMI handling (ServerWorks/OSB workaround)
to i8042.c.

Signed-off-by: Vojtech Pavlik <[email protected]>

--
Vojtech Pavlik
SuSE Labs, SuSE CR