On Tuesday 22 January 2008 10:29, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 06:22:42PM -0500, Len Brown wrote:
> > > The one thing I worry about is if you aren't including the BIOS
> > > version in the DMI list, you could end up in a situation where one
> > > version of the BIOS treats OSI(Linu
On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 06:22:42PM -0500, Len Brown wrote:
> > The one thing I worry about is if you aren't including the BIOS
> > version in the DMI list, you could end up in a situation where one
> > version of the BIOS treats OSI(Linux) as a no-op, but a newer or an
> > older version of the BIOS
On Monday 21 January 2008 02:51, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 02:08:40PM -0500, Len Brown wrote:
> >
> > OSI(Linux) has no effect on the AML of this machine,
> > as OSYS is over-written. So I'll just kill the warning
> > on this box by adding it to the NOP DMI list.
>
> The one
On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 02:08:40PM -0500, Len Brown wrote:
>
> OSI(Linux) has no effect on the AML of this machine,
> as OSYS is over-written. So I'll just kill the warning
> on this box by adding it to the NOP DMI list.
The one thing I worry about is if you aren't including the BIOS
version in
On Saturday 19 January 2008 02:54, Dmitry A. Marin wrote:
> Hello! The output of acpidumop is attached. I working with
> 2.6.24-4 kernel now (Ubuntu Hardy (testing)), but if it
> important I can try 2.6.23 as it exist in distribution.
> It seems, that I worked with 2.6.18 5-6 month ago and tried
>
On Sunday 15 July 2007 06:40, Dmitry A. Marin wrote:
> System Information
> Manufacturer: BenQ
> Product Name: Joybook S31
Do you notice any functional difference when booting with
"acpi_osi=Linux"(default for 2.6.22 and earlier)
vs.
"acpi_osi=!Linux" (default for 2.
Hello. I had seen a string "Please send dmidecode to
linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" in dmesg output and decided to
sent you this information.
# dmidecode 2.8
SMBIOS 2.4 present.
34 structures occupying 1112 bytes.
Table at 0x000DF810.
Handle 0x, DMI type 0, 24 bytes
BIOS Information
Vendo