Message-ID: <EDC461A30AC4D511ADE10002A5072CAD04C7A56D@orsmsx119.jf.intel.com>
From: "Grover, Andrew" <andrew.grover@intel.com>
To: "'Arjan van de Ven'" <arjanv@redhat.com>, marcelo@conectiva.com.br
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: RE: [BK PATCH] ACPI updates
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 15:29:56 -0800 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1396
Lines: 33

> From: Arjan van de Ven [mailto:arjanv@redhat.com] 
> > Is your concern with the code, or the cmdline option? We 
> could certainly
> 
> the code, not so much the commandline option (that one is not used
> in practice), but actually my biggest concern is that you 
> break existing
> setups, or at least change it more than needed. There is ZERO need to
> remove the existing working (and lean) code, even though your 
> code might
> also be able to do the same. It means people suddenly need to 
> change all
> kinds of config options, it's different code so will work slightly
> different... unifying 2.5 is nice and all but there's no need for that
> here since both implementations can coexist trivially (as the 
> United Linux
> kernel shows)

Well maybe that's what we should do - use the UnitedLinux ACPI patch (which
iirc is based on fairly recent ACPI code, and presumably minimizes
ACPI-related breakage) and then proceed incrementally from there?

Sound OK? Marcelo? UL folks?

Regards -- Andy

PS probably involve some work breaking out the ACPI stuff from the UL patch
as a whole, or maybe (???) the UL people already have it broken out?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/