Applied.
On Thursday 15 March 2007 15:15, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> This patch allows for ibm-acpi to coexist (with diminished functionality) with
> other drivers like ACPI_BAY. ibm-acpi will simply disable the functions it is
> not able to register ACPI notifiers for.
>
>
On Thu 15. Mar - 12:37:32, Kristen Carlson Accardi wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 12:17:21 -0700
> Chris Wedgwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 02:51:14PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> >
> > > This patch allows for ibm-acpi to coexist (with diminished
> > >
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Kristen Carlson Accardi wrote:
> I haven't followed the ibm_acpi development lately, but when I first
> wrote the bay driver, it had a couple features that ibm_acpi didn't have,
> and then of course, is missing some it does have. What used to be the
> case is that if bay was
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Kristen Carlson Accardi wrote:
> this patch gives me the following compile error:
>
> drivers/acpi/ibm_acpi.c: In function ???ibm_init???:
> drivers/acpi/ibm_acpi.c:2605: warning: implicit declaration of function
> ???ibm_exit???
> drivers/acpi/ibm_acpi.c: At top level:
>
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 02:51:14PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > This patch allows for ibm-acpi to coexist (with diminished
> > functionality) with other drivers like ACPI_BAY.
>
> Given the ACP_IBM_BAY implementation is more complete
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 12:17:21 -0700
Chris Wedgwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 02:51:14PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
>
> > This patch allows for ibm-acpi to coexist (with diminished
> > functionality) with other drivers like ACPI_BAY.
>
> Given the
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:51:14 -0300
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This patch allows for ibm-acpi to coexist (with diminished functionality) with
> other drivers like ACPI_BAY. ibm-acpi will simply disable the functions it is
> not able to register ACPI notifiers for.
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 02:51:14PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> This patch allows for ibm-acpi to coexist (with diminished
> functionality) with other drivers like ACPI_BAY.
Given the ACP_IBM_BAY implementation is more complete (or seems to be,
please comment if that isn't the
This patch allows for ibm-acpi to coexist (with diminished functionality) with
other drivers like ACPI_BAY. ibm-acpi will simply disable the functions it is
not able to register ACPI notifiers for.
Signed-off-by: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Chris Wedgwood <[EMAIL
This patch allows for ibm-acpi to coexist (with diminished functionality) with
other drivers like ACPI_BAY. ibm-acpi will simply disable the functions it is
not able to register ACPI notifiers for.
Signed-off-by: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Chris Wedgwood <[EMAIL
This patch allows for ibm-acpi to coexist (with diminished functionality) with
other drivers like ACPI_BAY. ibm-acpi will simply disable the functions it is
not able to register ACPI notifiers for.
Signed-off-by: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Chris Wedgwood [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This patch allows for ibm-acpi to coexist (with diminished functionality) with
other drivers like ACPI_BAY. ibm-acpi will simply disable the functions it is
not able to register ACPI notifiers for.
Signed-off-by: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Chris Wedgwood [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 02:51:14PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
This patch allows for ibm-acpi to coexist (with diminished
functionality) with other drivers like ACPI_BAY.
Given the ACP_IBM_BAY implementation is more complete (or seems to be,
please comment if that isn't the case)
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:51:14 -0300
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This patch allows for ibm-acpi to coexist (with diminished functionality) with
other drivers like ACPI_BAY. ibm-acpi will simply disable the functions it is
not able to register ACPI notifiers for.
this
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 02:51:14PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
This patch allows for ibm-acpi to coexist (with diminished
functionality) with other drivers like ACPI_BAY.
Given the ACP_IBM_BAY implementation is more complete (or
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 12:17:21 -0700
Chris Wedgwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 02:51:14PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
This patch allows for ibm-acpi to coexist (with diminished
functionality) with other drivers like ACPI_BAY.
Given the ACP_IBM_BAY
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Kristen Carlson Accardi wrote:
this patch gives me the following compile error:
drivers/acpi/ibm_acpi.c: In function ???ibm_init???:
drivers/acpi/ibm_acpi.c:2605: warning: implicit declaration of function
???ibm_exit???
drivers/acpi/ibm_acpi.c: At top level:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Kristen Carlson Accardi wrote:
I haven't followed the ibm_acpi development lately, but when I first
wrote the bay driver, it had a couple features that ibm_acpi didn't have,
and then of course, is missing some it does have. What used to be the
case is that if bay was
On Thu 15. Mar - 12:37:32, Kristen Carlson Accardi wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 12:17:21 -0700
Chris Wedgwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 02:51:14PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
This patch allows for ibm-acpi to coexist (with diminished
functionality)
Applied.
On Thursday 15 March 2007 15:15, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
This patch allows for ibm-acpi to coexist (with diminished functionality) with
other drivers like ACPI_BAY. ibm-acpi will simply disable the functions it is
not able to register ACPI notifiers for.
Signed-off-by:
20 matches
Mail list logo
