2003-06-22 22:35:51

by Nicolas Mailhot

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: ACPI APIC ERROR KT400 IRQ

See

http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10

and

http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=71

I believe 2.4 and 2.5 (mis)behaviour is now the same.

( what I can't understand is how the acpi team hopes to get acpi
included in mainstream distributions without getting it to work with
such a big chipset provider as VIA. They should realize it's a
showstopper - no vendor will release a product that fails on such a big
class of hardware ).

Regards,

--
Nicolas Mailhot


Attachments:
signature.asc (189.00 B)
Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign

2003-06-23 05:07:38

by jurriaan

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: ACPI APIC ERROR KT400 IRQ

From: Nicolas Mailhot <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 12:49:54AM +0200
> See
>
> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10
>
> and
>
> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=71
>
> I believe 2.4 and 2.5 (mis)behaviour is now the same.
>
Hey, I know that one. Bug 678 is very similar :-)

Jurriaan
--
My sources tell me that you combine arrogance with trivia and try to
pass it off as intelligence.
Dogbert
Debian (Unstable) GNU/Linux 2.5.72 4112 bogomips load av: 1.93 1.39 1.10

2003-06-23 06:16:06

by Nicolas Mailhot

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: ACPI APIC ERROR KT400 IRQ

Le lun 23/06/2003 ? 07:21, Jurriaan a ?crit :
> From: Nicolas Mailhot <[email protected]>
> Date: Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 12:49:54AM +0200
> > See
> >
> > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10
> >
> > and
> >
> > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=71
> >
> > I believe 2.4 and 2.5 (mis)behaviour is now the same.
> >
> Hey, I know that one. Bug 678 is very similar :-)

If it's similar enough it's probably the same bug it should be marked
duplicate (or at least depending on 10 like 71)

Cheers,

--
Nicolas Mailhot


Attachments:
signature.asc (189.00 B)
Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign