Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1762989AbZFQCvO@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1762989AbZFQCvO (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 16 Jun 2009 22:51:14 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753997AbZFQCvD
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Tue, 16 Jun 2009 22:51:03 -0400
Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([93.93.128.6]:60957 "EHLO
	vavatch.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753877AbZFQCvC (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 16 Jun 2009 22:51:02 -0400
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 03:51:01 +0100
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>
To: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
       "linux-input@vger.kernel.org" <linux-input@vger.kernel.org>,
       "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       "akpm@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
       "greg@kroah.com" <greg@kroah.com>, yanli@infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] More i8042-reset quirks for MSI Wind-clone netbooks
Message-ID: <20090617025101.GA27595@srcf.ucam.org>
References: <20090615141613.GA7876@sage.bj.intel.com> <20090615143446.GB19451@srcf.ucam.org> <20090615144748.GA25734@thyme.bj.intel.com> <20090616154200.GA12715@srcf.ucam.org> <20090616173618.353901ee@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20090616164351.GA14353@srcf.ucam.org> <20090616181549.496ae0f2@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20090616171732.GA14912@srcf.ucam.org> <20090617010138.GA13479@thyme.bj.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20090617010138.GA13479@thyme.bj.intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14)
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: <locally generated>
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: mjg59@codon.org.uk
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on vavatch.codon.org.uk); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 867
Lines: 22

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 09:01:40AM +0800, Li, Yan I wrote:

> This seems a change too aggressive for me. Do we have a good reason
> for taking this risk? 

It's generally much easier to find regressions (people complain) than it 
is to find things that have never worked (people just assume Linux is 
broken).

> Of course if we found the "actual problem" we'd conjure up a better 
> fix. But before that, I'd prefer the conservative way.

Does stock Windows work on the machine? I think this really ought to be 
a pretty obvious minimal test before adding quirks to the kernel.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org
--
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/