Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762363AbWLJWtP (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Dec 2006 17:49:15 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1762358AbWLJWtP (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Dec 2006 17:49:15 -0500 Received: from smtp112.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.198.211]:41156 "HELO smtp112.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1761978AbWLJWtN (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Dec 2006 17:49:13 -0500 X-YMail-OSG: .6FzddIVM1l929pW9Ny64bDH_9mWj0cSrotRlPFQjYUSqtESLhjY860Epoc5rw2ZQaeiu5ELuMCHwP1VmgGQr7QQsGc3QYuY7jlgWjncov0vWVeb8xavHZC5mSMKQcaNUYpdHVWrFguNwQY- Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 14:49:03 -0800 From: Chris Wedgwood To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Daniel Drake , Adrian Bunk , Sergio Monteiro Basto , Daniel Ritz , Jean Delvare , Bjorn Helgaas , Brice Goglin , "John W. Linville" , Bauke Jan Douma , Tomasz Koprowski , gregkh@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz Subject: Re: RFC: PCI quirks update for 2.6.16 Message-ID: <20061210224903.GA23643@tuatara.stupidest.org> References: <20061207132430.GF8963@stusta.de> <45782774.8060002@gentoo.org> <1165723779.334.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20061210160053.GD10351@stusta.de> <457C345D.8030305@gentoo.org> <20061210223351.GA22878@tuatara.stupidest.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1399 Lines: 31 On Sun, Dec 10, 2006 at 02:39:37PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > They should be safe, and OBVIOUS. Well, it's not clear to me that reverting to a quirk the pokes *all* VIA pci devices on all machines is safe, it's not even clear if it was a good idea to merge this. All the same, I can retest the latest 2.6.16.x with that change reverted but since it originally caused pain there has been a BIOS upgrade (or two, I forget) that might affect things (for many poeple the quirk isn't needed and CPI does the right thing). > If there is a box that breaks with a 2.6.x.y release, then that .y > release was clearly a mistake, and fundamentally broke the whole > point of the 3Astable tree. Well, I think the current 2.6.16.x release series is already broken on some other subset of hardware. There might be more of those than there are with the quirk-me-hard approach --- in which case do we try to accommodate the (potential) majority with something that is clearly wrong or so we leave them broken for a bit longer until we can get some more coverage on Alan's much cleaner and specific fix which I think is slated for 2.6.20 and then backport that? - 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/