On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 5:43 AM, Stefan Hellermann
wrote:
> 2013/10/3 Felipe Contreras
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Felipe Contreras
>> wrote:
>> > More people have reported they need this for their machines to work
>> > correctly.
>> >
>> > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 9:16 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, October 14, 2013 08:14:28 AM Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 6:58 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> > On Sunday, October 13, 2013 10:30:50 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Feli
On Monday, October 14, 2013 08:14:28 AM Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 6:58 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Sunday, October 13, 2013 10:30:50 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >> On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Felipe Contreras
> >> wrote:
> >> > More people have reported they
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 6:58 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Sunday, October 13, 2013 10:30:50 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Felipe Contreras
>> wrote:
>> > More people have reported they need this for their machines to work
>> > correctly.
>> >
>> > https://bug
On Sunday, October 13, 2013 10:30:50 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Felipe Contreras
> wrote:
> > More people have reported they need this for their machines to work
> > correctly.
> >
> > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=60682
>
> I see this was merged t
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Felipe Contreras
wrote:
> More people have reported they need this for their machines to work
> correctly.
>
> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=60682
I see this was merged to the linux-next branch. Is there any reason
why it's not proposed for v3.12?
-
On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 8:54 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 02:27:04AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> > > Having a per-entry comment is significantly clearer.
>> >
>> > That is your opinion, it's not a demonstrable fact.
>>
>> Say one of the machines turns out to need the quir
On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 08:01:34PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 7:53 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> > No, it demonstrably doesn't. The comments that do exist refer to only a
>> > subset of the entries underneath t
On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 02:27:04AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > Having a per-entry comment is significantly clearer.
> >
> > That is your opinion, it's not a demonstrable fact.
>
> Say one of the machines turns out to need the quirk for two different
> reasons. How do we document that? Lo
On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 08:01:34PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 7:53 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > No, it demonstrably doesn't. The comments that do exist refer to only a
> > subset of the entries underneath them.
>
> That's not true.
>
> /*
> * BIOS invocation of _OS
On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 7:53 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 07:50:18PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 7:32 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> > I don't get the final
>> > say in whether or not this patch gets merged, but there's a decent
>> > chance that
On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 07:50:18PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 7:32 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > I don't get the final
> > say in whether or not this patch gets merged, but there's a decent
> > chance that I'm going to be the one who has to remove the entries again
>
On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 7:32 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 07:27:48PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>
>> If _you_ want to add comments for each entry in the list you can do so
>> after this patch is applied.
>
> If you want to participate in a collaborative development effor
On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 07:27:48PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> If _you_ want to add comments for each entry in the list you can do so
> after this patch is applied.
If you want to participate in a collaborative development effort you
should pay attention to other people's concerns. I don't
On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 06:36:57PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> > On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 06:27:28PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> >> From acpi_osi_dmi_table:
>> >>
>> >> /*
On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 06:36:57PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 06:27:28PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >> From acpi_osi_dmi_table:
> >>
> >> /*
> >> * BIOS invocation of _OSI(Linux) is almost always a BIOS
On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 06:27:28PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> From acpi_osi_dmi_table:
>>
>> /*
>> * BIOS invocation of _OSI(Linux) is almost always a BIOS bug.
>> * Linux ignores it, except for the machines enumerated below.
>> */
>
On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 06:27:28PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> From acpi_osi_dmi_table:
>
> /*
> * BIOS invocation of _OSI(Linux) is almost always a BIOS bug.
> * Linux ignores it, except for the machines enumerated below.
> */
Which was a mistake. We learn from mistakes rather than repeatin
On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 03:51:05PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> > On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 03:40:42PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> >
>> >> In case you didn't hear, the plan
On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 03:51:05PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 03:40:42PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >
> >> In case you didn't hear, the plan was to add an entry if a user
> >> reports the backlight not w
On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 03:40:42PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>
>> In case you didn't hear, the plan was to add an entry if a user
>> reports the backlight not working correctly, and acpi_osi="!Windows
>> 2012" fixing it with no negative
On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 03:40:42PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> In case you didn't hear, the plan was to add an entry if a user
> reports the backlight not working correctly, and acpi_osi="!Windows
> 2012" fixing it with no negative effects. and that's what users did in
> bug #60682.
So add t
On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 03:29:10PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> > On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 12:13:03PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> >> More people have reported they need th
On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 03:29:10PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 12:13:03PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >> More people have reported they need this for their machines to work
> >> correctly.
> >
> > Can you
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 12:13:03PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> More people have reported they need this for their machines to work
>> correctly.
>
> Can you add a comment to each indicating why they're being added so we
> can easily r
On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 12:13:03PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> More people have reported they need this for their machines to work
> correctly.
Can you add a comment to each indicating why they're being added so we
can easily remove them again once the problem is fixed?
--
Matthew Garrett
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Felipe Contreras
wrote:
> More people have reported they need this for their machines to work
> correctly.
>
> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=60682
Reported-by: Stefan Hellermann
Reported-by: Benedikt Sauer
Reported-by: Erno Kuusela
Reported-by: Jo
More people have reported they need this for their machines to work
correctly.
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=60682
Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras
---
drivers/acpi/blacklist.c | 48
1 file changed, 48 insertions(+)
diff --git a/dri
28 matches
Mail list logo
