From: "D. Hazelton" <dhazelton@enter.net>
To: Alan <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ALSA: hda-intel - Disable MSI support by default
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 23:06:43 -0500
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <200611150059.kAF0xBTl009796@hera.kernel.org> <200611142253.29866.dhazelton@enter.net> <20061115114055.05d9df8f@localhost.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <20061115114055.05d9df8f@localhost.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200611152306.43786.dhazelton@enter.net>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1304
Lines: 31

On Wednesday 15 November 2006 06:40, Alan wrote:
> > Point is that it is still only one platform. Or don't you understand the
> > point I was making?
>
> Given the Intel chipset platform appears to be over half the market it
> makes sense to do things right there. It also encourages other vendors to
> fix their stuff or send us patches to do so.
>
> So I don't think anyone gives a damn about your personal issues with
> Intel.
>
> Alan

I have no personal issues with Intel. I just always avoided their stuff 
because it always cost more and wasn't as well supported in Linux back when I 
first started using Linux.

Anyway, my point still stands. One platform does not a whitelist make. Instead 
why not make the MSI support optional and a build-option? I do believe that I 
even suggested such. This would allow for the people that want it (or need 
it) to have it and would keep a potentially dangerous option from being used.

Now, since I'm at the end of options in explaining my point I'm going to start 
ignoring further messages on this topic.

DRH
-
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/