Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 09 Mar 2004 15:14:06 -0500 | From | Bill Davidsen <> | Subject | Re: Hyper-threaded pickle |
| |
Len Brown wrote: >>>Re: old systems -- we use dmi_scan to disable ACPI on systems by default >>>on systems older than 1/1/2001. >> >>What happens for the no-DMI case? > > > When DMI is not present, dmi_scan is a no-op -- so ACPI will run in > whatever default the system is set to -- eg. "off" for FC1, and "on" for > FC2-test1. > > We've found in practice that dmi_scan has been pretty effective at > identifying the set of systems new enough to have an ACPI enabled BIOS > but old enough that the ACPI implementation is hopeless. Though we've > had many reports of 1/1/2001 being a bit *too* conservative -- disabling > ACPI on systems where ACPI works fine. Indeed, there is a bugzilla > requesting a "white-list" to enable exceptions to this date. I'm not > enthusiastic about that plan, however. I figure there are more 3-year > old boxes that have been running Linux w/o ACPI than there are those > which have; and I'd rather spend my ergs on the current and upcoming > boxes where vendors are more willing to update a broken BIOS...
Even though I have some boxes which are hurt by this, I have to agree, although I wouldn't be unhappy if there were a few more options to enable just parts of ACPI. There are more important things, however, and since I can live with ACPI=force or no acpi at all it's an annoyance rather than an issue.
I have a few machines which are never going to 2.6 because their ACPI is totally broken and 2.6 APC no longer functions to turn the machine off. Since I expect 2.4 to be viable longer than the machines, I have no issues with that, either. If I don't have time to look at it why should I ask anyone else? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |