Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S271263AbUJVMXe (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Oct 2004 08:23:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S271260AbUJVMXd (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Oct 2004 08:23:33 -0400 Received: from dspnet.fr.eu.org ([62.73.5.179]:55813 "EHLO dspnet.fr.eu.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S271263AbUJVMXa (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Oct 2004 08:23:30 -0400 Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 14:23:27 +0200 From: Olivier Galibert To: "Hack inc." Subject: Buggy DSDTs policy ? Message-ID: <20041022122326.GA69381@dspnet.fr.eu.org> Mail-Followup-To: Olivier Galibert , "Hack inc." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 709 Lines: 22 What is the policy w.r.t broken DSDTs and the ACPI subsystem? Specifically, which of these two options is right: 1- Provide a non-buggy DSDT to the kernel 2- Make the ACPI subsystem tolerant of the bugs The option 3, have all biosen over the world fixed is a nice fantasy, but nothing else. If 1, we need to put a mechanism for that in the official kernel. If 2, I'll start working on patches to make the laptop I play with work as-is. So, which it is? OG. - 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/