On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 17:58:17 -0200 Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> msi-laptop, and asus-acpi is going to be replaced with asus-laptop (a
> fixed-up asus-acpi that got a new maintainer a short while ago).
>
> Other names I like:
> thinkpad-acpi (goes well with thinkpad-ec, thinkpad-smapi
Handles from a DSDT are in fact permanent.
Once a SSDT is unloaded, however, those handles are invalid.
We are considering making these handles "real" handles instead of simply
pointers to catch the use of an invalid handle.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:linux-a
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007, Evgeni Golov wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 17:30:11 -0200 Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > > Also, with the whole Lenovo deal, I am wondering if ibm-acpi should
> > > not be renamed to something else with either "tp" or "thinkpad" in
> > > the name. Suggestions? I would pr
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 17:30:11 -0200 Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > Also, with the whole Lenovo deal, I am wondering if ibm-acpi should
> > not be renamed to something else with either "tp" or "thinkpad" in
> > the name. Suggestions? I would prefer to rename the driver when
> > the move to d
The code I inherited in ibm-acpi does heavy caching of acpi_get_handle()
results. It stores the results of acpi_get_handle() for a number of nodes
at module init, and uses the stored results during its lifetime.
Is that a valid use of the handles returned by acpi_get_handle()? In
particular, wha
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> Upstream requested that ibm-acpi be moved out of drivers/acpi into
> drivers/misc in a future date. I intend to do so after I finish the
> platform driver work.
>
> Also, with the whole Lenovo deal, I am wondering if ibm-acpi should not be
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> IBM_HANDLE(bay, root, "\\_SB.PCI.IDE.SECN.MAST", /* 570 */
> "\\_SB.PCI0.IDE0.IDES.IDSM", /* 600e/x, 770e, 770x */
> -"\\_SB.PCI0.SATA.SCND.MSTR", /* T60, X60, Z60 */
> +"\\_SB.PCI0.SATA.SCND.MSTR", /* T60, X60
I have just noticed that the T60p bay suport patch uncovered a bad design
bug in the ibm-acpi bay handling, that causes a regression (ibm-acpi bay
support will not work on the T43 and many others). It will work on the
t60p, though :-p
The workaround is to revert that patch. I am working on a pro
