On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Laszlo Ersek <[email protected]> wrote: > On 02/22/13 19:15, Laszlo Ersek wrote: >> On 02/22/13 17:51, Jordan Justen wrote: >>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 7:23 PM, Laszlo Ersek <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Patches 1 to 6 upgrade the FADT to ACPI 2.0 and present the PIIX3 Reset >>>> Control Register in it. >>> >>> I think maybe 1 should be moved to follow 6. >>> >>> Series Reviewed-by: Jordan Justen <[email protected]> >> >> Thank you all for the reviews, and Jordan, please feel free to reorder >> the series when you commit it; [1..6] and [7..8] are independent. > > Aah sorry, I misunderstood. You were suggesting to move the table > revision bumps *after* the contents changes. > > I humbly disagree with that (not that the revision numbers matter > much...): in theory, seeing a revision bump without contents changes > should disturb no consumer, but seeing the contents change without being > warned by a revision bump *might*. The latter basically defeats the > purpose of revision numbers. > > (But again, we don't actually care about revision numbers; and even if > we did, it'd only matter during bisection.) > > So anyway I placed the revision bumps as first patch on purpose.
I guess I always thought the revision bump was a way to trigger the OS to re-evaluate the ACPI landscape. In the past, I thought that Windows might not notice ACPI changes if the version wasn't bumped. In that case, you'd want to make sure the number changed after the changes. (Or, perhaps at each step for bisect.) -Jordan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/edk2-devel
