On Wednesday 23 January 2013 20:12:59 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 08:00:31 PM Peter Wu wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Any progress on this one? I guess it won't make into 3.8, perhaps 3.9?
>
> No, that doesn't go anywhere for now.
>
> In fact, I need to discuss that with Le
On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 08:00:31 PM Peter Wu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Any progress on this one? I guess it won't make into 3.8, perhaps 3.9?
No, that doesn't go anywhere for now.
In fact, I need to discuss that with Len.
Thanks,
Rafael
> On Friday 04 January 2013 00:44:16 Rafael J. Wysocki wro
Hi,
Any progress on this one? I guess it won't make into 3.8, perhaps 3.9?
On Friday 04 January 2013 00:44:16 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, January 03, 2013 04:00:55 PM Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Thursday, January 03, 2013
On Thursday, January 03, 2013 04:00:55 PM Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 03, 2013 02:44:32 PM Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 1:17 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> > On Thursday, January 03, 2013 08:16:26
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, January 03, 2013 02:44:32 PM Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 1:17 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> > On Thursday, January 03, 2013 08:16:26 AM Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Rafael J
On Thursday, January 03, 2013 02:44:32 PM Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 1:17 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 03, 2013 08:16:26 AM Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> >> On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki
> >> >
> >> >
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 1:17 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, January 03, 2013 08:16:26 AM Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki
>> >
>> > As the kernel Bugzilla report #42696 indicates, it generally is not
>> > s
On Thursday, January 03, 2013 08:16:26 AM Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki
> >
> > As the kernel Bugzilla report #42696 indicates, it generally is not
> > sufficient to use _ADR to get an ACPI device node corresponding to
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki
>
> As the kernel Bugzilla report #42696 indicates, it generally is not
> sufficient to use _ADR to get an ACPI device node corresponding to
> the given PCI device, because there may be multiple objects with
> mat
From: Rafael J. Wysocki
As the kernel Bugzilla report #42696 indicates, it generally is not
sufficient to use _ADR to get an ACPI device node corresponding to
the given PCI device, because there may be multiple objects with
matching _ADR in the ACPI namespace (this probably is against the
spec, b
10 matches
Mail list logo