On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 16:12 +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
Le vendredi 08 février 2008, Greg KH a écrit :
On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 05:38:33PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
Le mardi 05 f?vrier 2008, Greg KH a ?crit?:
Thomas Renninger: How come these aren't upstream: (...) patches.arch/export-acpi_check_resource_conflict.patch patches.arch/small-acpica-extension-to-be-able-to-store-the-name-of.patch (...)
Jean Delavare: Are these going to be in 2.6.25: patches.arch/check-for-acpi-resource-conflicts-in-hwmon-drivers.patch patches.arch/check-for-acpi-resource-conflicts-in-i2c-bus-drivers.patch
These two depend on Thomas' ACPI patches above. I'll look into pushing them upstream once the ACPI patches in question are there.
It sounds like they are there, so can you try to get them in before the merge window closes?
Linus didn't like them, so they are unlikely to make it into 2.6.25. Discussions are going on with regards to how this feature should be implemented.
I'd vote to keep them for a while and remove them at late Beta 11.0 stage or simply disable the messages by setting default param to be quiet (->might help to solve an ugly bug later by enabling and report possible interference via boot param in a related bug report). Hopefully we get some reports via bugzilla.novell.com and can report them and discuss it upstream then. Like that we might get a clearer picture about possible interference on specific BIOSes without polluting the mainline kernel with a temporary debug patch. What do you think? Thomas -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+help@opensuse.org