Re: 2.6.18 suspend regression on Intel Macs

[Arjan van de Ven]

On Tue, 2006-10-10 at 21:08 +0200, FrÃdÃric Riss wrote:
> Le mardi 10 octobre 2006 Ã 08:33 -0700, Linus Torvalds a Ãcrit :
> > > If we do this we probably should at least key this of some DMI
> > > identification for the mac mini..
> > 
> > No. That would be silly.
> > 
> > Having _conditional_ code is not only bigger, it's orders of magnitude 
> > more complex and likely to break. It's much better to say: "We know at 
> > least one machine needs this" than it is to say "We know machine X needs 
> > this", because the latter has extra complexity that just doesn't buy you 
> > anything.
> > 
> > It's much better to treat everybody the same, if that works. That way, you 
> > don't have different code-paths.
> 
> So what's the plan? Should/Will the ACPI guys remove the bit-preserving
> change brought in with the latest ACPICA merge?


it sounds like a good idea to at least put the workaround back for now,
until a more elegant solution (maybe something can be done to make it
not needed anymore) is found...
(or until it shows it breaks other machines at which point
reconsideration is also needed)

-- 
if you want to mail me at work (you don't), use arjan (at) linux.intel.com

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/