On Mon, 2008-02-18 at 16:17 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008, Thomas Renninger wrote:
The problem is that OSI is used by Windows to pass the exact Windows
(not OS) version they are running, this function should be called WOSI.
We of course want to run on the
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008, Thomas Renninger wrote:
Looks quite a bad idea IMO. 2.6.24 means what? SuSE's? Mainline's?
Debian's? At what patch level? With which user patches tacked on top? And
at what level of userspace support (X.org can make a LOT of difference
here)?
So you think on
On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 11:24 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008, Thomas Renninger wrote:
Looks quite a bad idea IMO. 2.6.24 means what? SuSE's? Mainline's?
Debian's? At what patch level? With which user patches tacked on top?
And
at what level of
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008, Thomas Renninger wrote:
AFAIK, there is no problem with the *ACPI* brightness firmware on ThinkPads.
At all. Its only quirk is that you want to call _BCL at least once at
driver load.
No it's not that it's:
- you call BCLL, a totally undefined AML function, found out
Hi,
On Sun, 2008-01-20 at 17:49 -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jan 2008, Theodore Tso wrote:
Sure, and that means they have to *tell* *us* what they are doing so
we can be compatible with Windows. The concern is that they may be
doing stuff that isn't in the standard
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008, Thomas Renninger wrote:
The problem is that OSI is used by Windows to pass the exact Windows
(not OS) version they are running, this function should be called WOSI.
We of course want to run on the latest fix-ups here and should pass
Windows 2006 (or whatever latest string
On Mon, 2008-02-18 at 16:17 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008, Thomas Renninger wrote:
The problem is that OSI is used by Windows to pass the exact Windows
(not OS) version they are running, this function should be called WOSI.
We of course want to run on the
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 01:00:59AM +0100, Thomas Renninger wrote:
Most stuff that gets fixed by these workarounds would make no sense to
backport, because backports are much too intrusive, e.g.:
Many of the workarounds really aren't that hard to backport, and the
reality is after the distro
On Mon, 2008-02-18 at 19:26 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 01:00:59AM +0100, Thomas Renninger wrote:
Most stuff that gets fixed by these workarounds would make no sense to
backport, because backports are much too intrusive, e.g.:
Many of the workarounds really
On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 08:52:38PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
Maybe we should define the S3 video strong right away, along with
whatever else Lenovo was trying to use OSI(Linux) for, and then get
the distro's to ship Errata kernels that answer yes for those
questions ASAP.
I'd prefer to
On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 09:50:00AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Maybe we should define the S3 video strong right away, along with
whatever else Lenovo was trying to use OSI(Linux) for, and then get
the distro's to ship Errata kernels that answer yes for those
questions ASAP.
I'd
On Monday 21 January 2008 14:37, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 02:00:41PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
Well, unless until Video card vendors give us their secret interfaves
to reinitialize their cards, we're never going to figure it out,
right?
There's (not yet
Hi,
On Sunday, 20 of January 2008, Len Brown wrote:
Ted, Henrique, Matthew,
Thank you for your wise words.
Here is my plan.
1. notify Intel mobile BIOS group that Linux will STOP answering yes to
OSI(Linux),
that they should STOP using OSI(Linux) in their BIOS, and that Linux will
Len Brown wrote:
I am okay with defining OSI strings for the benefit of BIOS vendors that
need to know about Linux capabilities. But the string must
identify that specific capability (or lack of a capability).
Is there a chance this will be added to future ACPI specs, or have it
On Sunday 20 January 2008 07:03, Tomas Carnecky wrote:
Len Brown wrote:
I am okay with defining OSI strings for the benefit of BIOS vendors that
need to know about Linux capabilities. But the string must
identify that specific capability (or lack of a capability).
Is there a
Len Brown wrote:
On Sunday 20 January 2008 07:03, Tomas Carnecky wrote:
Len Brown wrote:
I am okay with defining OSI strings for the benefit of BIOS vendors that
need to know about Linux capabilities. But the string must
identify that specific capability (or lack of a capability).
Is
On Sat, 19 Jan 2008, Theodore Tso wrote:
Sure, and that means they have to *tell* *us* what they are doing so
we can be compatible with Windows. The concern is that they may be
doing stuff that isn't in the standard ACPI spec, but which needs to
be a certain way in order to be compatible with
On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 01:31:59PM -0500, Len Brown wrote:
We as the Linux community can define Needs BIOS S3 video restore as a string
and ship it in our kernel, telling BIOS writers about it.
Maybe we should define the S3 video strong right away, along with
whatever else Lenovo was trying to
On Sat, 19 Jan 2008, Len Brown wrote:
and if they did, nobody updates their bios anyway.
Actually, that only depends on us. If you drop support for people using
known-bad BIOS versions that give you greif, they have no choice but to go
away, or to upgrade. And so far, I have never had anyone
On Sat, Jan 19, 2008 at 10:08:30AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
Actually, that only depends on us. If you drop support for people using
known-bad BIOS versions that give you greif, they have no choice but to go
away, or to upgrade. And so far, I have never had anyone complain
On Sat, 19 Jan 2008, Theodore Tso wrote:
On Sat, Jan 19, 2008 at 10:08:30AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
Actually, that only depends on us. If you drop support for people using
known-bad BIOS versions that give you greif, they have no choice but to go
away, or to upgrade. And
On Sat, Jan 19, 2008 at 01:33:04PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
Yes. This is no easy problem asking for a quick hack as a solution. It is
not impossible to solve, but it will definately require more than hacks on
our side to get it done properly.
The only way to get it done
On Sat, Jan 19, 2008 at 03:43:28PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
The only way to get it done properly is to ensure that we're compatible
with Windows, and to get vendors to tell us when we're not. Offering
them any mechanism that allows them to special-case Linux will just lead
to them
Ted, Henrique, Matthew,
Thank you for your wise words.
Here is my plan.
1. notify Intel mobile BIOS group that Linux will STOP answering yes to
OSI(Linux),
that they should STOP using OSI(Linux) in their BIOS, and that Linux will
complain about them when they do.
I believe this team
On Thursday 17 January 2008 16:31, Theodore Tso wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 03:04:26PM -0500, Len Brown wrote:
On Thursday 17 January 2008 07:28, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 05:24:50AM -0500, Len Brown wrote:
+ {
+ .callback =
From: Len Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Len Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
drivers/acpi/osl.c |9 +
1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/osl.c b/drivers/acpi/osl.c
index 5204731..0bfebda 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/osl.c
+++
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 05:24:50AM -0500, Len Brown wrote:
+ {
+ .callback = dmi_enable_osi_linux,
+ .ident = Lenovo ThinkPad T61,
+ .matches = {
+ DMI_MATCH(DMI_SYS_VENDOR, LENOVO),
+ DMI_MATCH(DMI_PRODUCT_VERSION, ThinkPad T61),
+
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 05:24:50AM -0500, Len Brown wrote:
+ {
+ .callback = dmi_enable_osi_linux,
+ .ident = Lenovo ThinkPad T61,
+ .matches = {
+DMI_MATCH(DMI_SYS_VENDOR, LENOVO),
+
On Thursday 17 January 2008 07:28, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 05:24:50AM -0500, Len Brown wrote:
+ {
+ .callback = dmi_enable_osi_linux,
+ .ident = Lenovo ThinkPad T61,
+ .matches = {
+DMI_MATCH(DMI_SYS_VENDOR, LENOVO),
+
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 03:04:26PM -0500, Len Brown wrote:
On Thursday 17 January 2008 07:28, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 05:24:50AM -0500, Len Brown wrote:
+ {
+ .callback = dmi_enable_osi_linux,
+ .ident = Lenovo ThinkPad T61,
+ .matches = {
+
30 matches
Mail list logo
