On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 12:56 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 01:45:00PM +0200, Thomas Renninger wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 12:13 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > I strongly suspect that the vast majority[1] of hardware that "needs"
> > > the trip points changing works perfectly well under Windows, so it's
> > > likely to be papering over bugs in the kernel. It'd be nice if we fixed
> > > those rather than encouraging people to poke stuff into /proc,
> > Some arguments against that:
> > - You cannot tell a customer: Wait for the kernel in half a year.
> > This is the time it at least needs until a laptop got sold, the
> > problem is found, a patch is written and checked in and finally
> > hits the distribution.
>
> We have to do so frequently. New hardware often exposes bugs in the
> kernel.
And often we can provide a boot param or whatever, that makes it at
least useable.
>
> > - You can also not backport fixes as ACPI patches mostly have the
> > potential to break other machines/BIOSes
> > - There also exist the policy to not fix up/workaround totally broken
> > AML BIOS implementations
>
> The policy has been to attempt to be bug-compatible with Windows
> whenever possible for some time now.
*whenever possible*
>
> > - We do not need to and never will be able to copy or do the same
> > Windows is doing
>
> Given that many vendors still only test against Windows, that's exactly
> what we need to do.
But we cannot (copy all windows (mis-)behavior).
>
> > > especially when doing so is guaranteed to break in really confusing ways
> > > with a lot of hardware. The firmware can reset the trip points at
> > > essentially arbitrary times and is well within its rights to expect the
> > > OS to actually pay attention to them.
> > What the hell is so wrong with:
> >
> > Let the user override the trip points. If he does so, ignore
> > thermal trip point updates from BIOS. Don't care for hysteresis
> > BIOS implementations (these are the BIOS trip point updates).
>
> No, that's not the only reason for notifications. Alteration in hardware
> state may also force a recalculation of trip point (adding a battery to
> a bay rather than a DVD drive may require the platform to be kept at a
> lower temperature)
"I've seen no evidence that this happens...", but I see the point.
> > If user changes them, it's his fault, he doesn't need to...
> > Make sure that trip points can only be lowered, compared to the
> > initially fetched one from BIOS.
>
> Surely people want this functionality so that they can raise trip
> points?
For Adrian it would be enough to be able to lower them.
Also being able to define a passive trip point (even if not provided by
BIOS) could help a lot machines.
What about at least:
- Be able to override passive cooling trip point
- If BIOS does not provide one, let user be able to define it
This should already make a lot people happy.
Thomas
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
