lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Dec]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateThu, 27 Dec 2007 21:41:32 -0800 (PST)
FromLinus Torvalds <>
SubjectRe: Suspend code ordering (again)
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007, Robert Hancock wrote:
> > I doubt they would prefer the later ordering in any way that matters, if the
> Windows version they were designed for uses the earlier ordering.

Well, I wouldn't say it's abotu "preferring" one over the other. It's very 
possible that the BIOS writers were *intending* to prefer ACPI 2.0, and it 
may even be likely that they thought that they wrote it that way, but the 
real issue is that it has apparently never ever been *tested* that way.

So yes, maybe the vendors actually thought they were a good ACPI-2.0 
implementation, but if Windows doesn't do the ordering that the 2.0 spec 
expects, then that is pretty much just a theoretical thing.

But yeah, it would be really nice to have this verified some way. Somebody 
must already know (whether it's a VM person or a BIOS writer, and whether 
they'd tell us, is obviously another issue).

		Linus


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-12-28 07:13    [from the cache]
©2003-2008