Hello,
is project acpi4asus still alive? (I'm asking here whether Andrew or Linus are
receiving patches from acpi guys). For me, it looks like this is somewhat dead.
I posted patch to include Asus M6A support to both lkm and acpi4asus list but no
response. I only noticed, that Andrew once tried to include in -mm but I did not
see it there anyway.
--
Luk?? Hejtm?nek
>
>is project acpi4asus still alive? (I'm asking here whether
>Andrew or Linus are
>receiving patches from acpi guys). For me, it looks like this
>is somewhat dead.
>
>I posted patch to include Asus M6A support to both lkm and
>acpi4asus list but no
>response. I only noticed, that Andrew once tried to include in
>-mm but I did not
>see it there anyway.
Please resort to [email protected] for these
kind of issue.
Thanks,
Luming
Lukas Hejtmanek <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> is project acpi4asus still alive?
I know of no such project.
> (I'm asking here whether Andrew or Linus are
> receiving patches from acpi guys). For me, it looks like this is somewhat dead.
Well actually I receive asus patches from various people and send them to
the acpi developers and nothing happens. So I resend and eventually a few
stick.
The ACPI team are trying to get away from these machine-specific ACPI
drivers in favour of doing everything correctly within AML, but there
doesn't seem to be a lot of progress with that afaict.
> I posted patch to include Asus M6A support to both lkm and acpi4asus list but no
> response. I only noticed, that Andrew once tried to include in -mm but I did not
> see it there anyway.
Missed it - please resend.
On Friday 12 May 2006 00:32, you wrote:
> Lukas Hejtmanek <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > is project acpi4asus still alive?
>
> I know of no such project.
Their ML seems to only receive patches from people. There's usually no
commentary on the patches themselves.
> > (I'm asking here whether Andrew or Linus are
> > receiving patches from acpi guys). For me, it looks like this is somewhat
> > dead.
>
> Well actually I receive asus patches from various people and send them to
> the acpi developers and nothing happens. So I resend and eventually a few
> stick.
>
> The ACPI team are trying to get away from these machine-specific ACPI
> drivers in favour of doing everything correctly within AML, but there
> doesn't seem to be a lot of progress with that afaict.
I am far from qualified to comment on this, but from a users point of view, is
it possible to not have laptop specific code in the kernel?
I have had two Linux laptops and with both I had ACPI issues.
The vendors of both laptops (Toshiba Tecra S1 and now an Asus W3V) don't seem
to be following standards. With both I seem to need to patch ACPI to get
various functions of the laptop to work.
I would love to see laptop specific functionality definitions exist outside
the kernel.
> > I posted patch to include Asus M6A support to both lkm and acpi4asus list
> > but no response. I only noticed, that Andrew once tried to include in -mm
> > but I did not see it there anyway.
>
> Missed it - please resend.
Would you mind if I add mine?
It adds support for W3000 (W3V) and indirectly fixes an issue with kmilo under
KDE (it was triggering excessive LCD read error messages by querying
asus_acpi module) allowing people (I am probably the only one who tested
this) with W3000 to run kmilo.
The patch is against gentoo-sources-2.6.16-r3 (I believe this corresponds to
vanilla sources 2.6.16.9 and I don't think gentoo-sources applied any other
patches against the vanilla asus-acpi.c).
Marek Wawrzyczny
----------------------
--- asus_acpi.c.original 2006-04-13 20:11:24.000000000 +1000
+++ asus_acpi.c 2006-04-20 10:25:40.000000000 +1000
@@ -131,6 +131,7 @@
P30, //Samsung P30
S1x, //S1300A, but also L1400B and M2400A (L84F)
S2x, //S200 (J1 reported), Victor MP-XP7210
+ W3V, //W3030V
xxN, //M2400N, M3700N, M5200N, S1300N, S5200N,
W1OOON
//(Centrino)
END_MODEL
@@ -345,6 +346,17 @@
.brightness_down = S2x_PREFIX "_Q0A"},
{
+ .name = "W3V",
+ .mt_mled = "MLED",
+ .mt_wled = "WLED",
+ .mt_lcd_switch = xxN_PREFIX "_Q10",
+ .lcd_status = "\\BKLT",
+ .brightness_set = "SPLV",
+ .brightness_get = "GPLV",
+ .display_set = "SDSP",
+ .display_get = "\\INFB"},
+
+ {
.name = "xxN",
.mt_mled = "MLED",
/* WLED present, but not controlled by ACPI */
@@ -1066,6 +1078,8 @@
hotk->model = S2x;
else if (strncmp(model->string.pointer, "L5", 2) == 0)
hotk->model = L5x;
+ else if (strncmp(model->string.pointer, "W3V", 3) == 0)
+ hotk->model = W3V;
if (hotk->model == END_MODEL) {
printk("unsupported, trying default values, supply the "
@@ -1087,9 +1101,10 @@
hotk->methods->mt_mled = NULL;
/* S5N and M5N have no MLED */
else if (strncmp(model->string.pointer, "M2N", 3) == 0 ||
- strncmp(model->string.pointer, "W1N", 3) == 0)
+ strncmp(model->string.pointer, "W1N", 3) == 0 ||
+ strncmp(model->string.pointer, "W3V", 3) == 0)
hotk->methods->mt_wled = "WLED";
- /* M2N and W1N have a usable WLED */
+ /* M2N, W1N and W3V have a usable WLED */
else if (asus_info) {
if (strncmp(asus_info->oem_table_id, "L1", 2) == 0)
hotk->methods->mled_status = NULL;
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
Marek W wrote:
> I am far from qualified to comment on this, but from a users point of view, is
> it possible to not have laptop specific code in the kernel?
> I have had two Linux laptops and with both I had ACPI issues.
> The vendors of both laptops (Toshiba Tecra S1 and now an Asus W3V) don't seem
> to be following standards. With both I seem to need to patch ACPI to get
> various functions of the laptop to work.
> I would love to see laptop specific functionality definitions exist outside
> the kernel.
>
I don't think that forcing laptop users to have their own code outside
the kernel is really the best approach for either the developers or the
users. Most users will not have the expertise or time to develop
patches, so teaching the kernel to handle special cases is likely to
benefit more users and avoid reinventing the wheel.
Having to maintain and out-of-mainline kernel tree is a time-consuming
job, and even if you can do it you may delay upgrades or build a kernel
without the added features if they are not required for normal operation.
--
-bill davidsen ([email protected])
"The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the
last possible moment - but no longer" -me
Hi!
> >I am far from qualified to comment on this, but from a
> >users point of view, is it possible to not have laptop
> >specific code in the kernel?
> >I have had two Linux laptops and with both I had ACPI
> >issues.
> >The vendors of both laptops (Toshiba Tecra S1 and now
> >an Asus W3V) don't seem to be following standards. With
> >both I seem to need to patch ACPI to get various
> >functions of the laptop to work.
> >I would love to see laptop specific functionality
> >definitions exist outside the kernel.
> >
> I don't think that forcing laptop users to have their
> own code outside the kernel is really the best approach
> for either the developers or the users. Most users will
No, we don't want that. But we do not want ibm-acpi, toshiba-acpi,
asus-acpi, etc, when they really only differ in string constants used.
We want userland to tell kernel 'mail led is controlled by AML routine
foo', instead of having gazillion *-acpi modules.
--
Thanks for all the (sleeping) penguins.
Pavel Machek wrote:
>Hi!
>
>
>
>>>I am far from qualified to comment on this, but from a
>>>users point of view, is it possible to not have laptop
>>>specific code in the kernel?
>>>I have had two Linux laptops and with both I had ACPI
>>>issues.
>>>The vendors of both laptops (Toshiba Tecra S1 and now
>>>an Asus W3V) don't seem to be following standards. With
>>>both I seem to need to patch ACPI to get various
>>>functions of the laptop to work.
>>>I would love to see laptop specific functionality
>>>definitions exist outside the kernel.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I don't think that forcing laptop users to have their
>>own code outside the kernel is really the best approach
>>for either the developers or the users. Most users will
>>
>>
>
>No, we don't want that. But we do not want ibm-acpi, toshiba-acpi,
>asus-acpi, etc, when they really only differ in string constants used.
>
>We want userland to tell kernel 'mail led is controlled by AML routine
>foo', instead of having gazillion *-acpi modules.
>
>
>
>
I see no reason why an interface to that couldn't be included in the
kernel, with just a small table for each hardware instead of a whole
module. Kind of a white list with detail.
--
bill davidsen <[email protected]>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979
On ?t 16-05-06 23:38:56, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> Pavel Machek wrote:
>
> >Hi!
> >
> >
> >
> >>>I am far from qualified to comment on this, but from a
> >>>users point of view, is it possible to not have laptop
> >>>specific code in the kernel?
> >>>I have had two Linux laptops and with both I had ACPI
> >>>issues.
> >>>The vendors of both laptops (Toshiba Tecra S1 and now
> >>>an Asus W3V) don't seem to be following standards. With
> >>>both I seem to need to patch ACPI to get various
> >>>functions of the laptop to work.
> >>>I would love to see laptop specific functionality
> >>>definitions exist outside the kernel.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>I don't think that forcing laptop users to have their
> >>own code outside the kernel is really the best approach
> >>for either the developers or the users. Most users will
> >>
> >>
> >
> >No, we don't want that. But we do not want ibm-acpi, toshiba-acpi,
> >asus-acpi, etc, when they really only differ in string constants used.
> >
> >We want userland to tell kernel 'mail led is controlled by AML routine
> >foo', instead of having gazillion *-acpi modules.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> I see no reason why an interface to that couldn't be included in the
> kernel, with just a small table for each hardware instead of a whole
> module. Kind of a white list with detail.
I guess that would be acceptable solution.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html