Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Sat, 2 Aug 2008 06:42:04 +0100 | | From | Matthew Garrett <> | | Subject | Re: ACPI OSI disaster on latest HP laptops - critical temperature shutdown | |
On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 07:36:57PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Aug 2008, Len Brown wrote:
> > It is better to expose ourselves to the known tested Windows functionality
> > -- even if it seems arbitrary, at least it is tested. The !Windows case
> > results in running _completely_ untested BIOS code.
>
> Actually, we should masquerade properly as the latest Windows version
> available for that machine, then. AFAIK, Windows does not set ALL the OSI
> strings, just one. We ARE running untested code in some BIOSes because of
> it.
The BIOSes I've tested check _OSI in order of Windows release, which is
consistent with Windows returning OSI strings for all previous versions.
Do you have any examples that suggest this isn't the case?
> Maybe it would be better if every ACPICA-using OS defined a
> _OSI(NotWindows), plus the relevant Windows OSI string they want to support,
> and Intel would send word that this string is to be used ONLY to disable all
> Windows bug workarounds, not to activate or deactivate any specific
> functionality?
Not all BIOSes would support this, so we'd need to support the Windows
workarounds anyway. At that point, there's no real benefit in having
multiple codepaths.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org
|  |