On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 08:47:26PM -0500, Victor Lowther wrote: > On Sun, 2008-09-28 at 00:10 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > No, there's no deterministic way to determine whether the BIOS code will > > correctly deal with the state that the DRM code programs. It's entirely > > possible for a previously required quirk to start breaking machines. > > That's why we removed the quirks on these kernels in the first place. > > No, we removed them becuase you assured me that they were no longer > required. You were mistaken.
Bugs happen. I didn't ask for the code to be removed because it wasn't necessary, I asked for the code to be removed because it now actively breaks some machines. I'm fully aware that this is a less than ideal situation. > In either case, I think the code required for Intel kernel modesetting > is already getting too complicated to live in pm-utils -- if knowledge > of the system, bios revision, video card, video driver, and kernel > revision will be required to determine the appropriate set of quirks > (and an answer of none will be required is not the right blanket > answer), this stuff needs to go in the quirks list in HAL. If the quirk > detection in HAL is not smart enough, it needs to be made smart enough > to handle all those variables. If it cannot be made smart enough in > HAL, we need a new mechanism for handling quirks. No, the quirks handling just needs to die. Utterly. Entirely. It can't be fixed. It's unscalable. Trying to improve it at this point is a waste of time that would be better spent on fixing up the kernel. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Pm-utils mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-utils
