On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 02:42:19PM +0200, Thomas Renninger wrote:
quoted text
> On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 12:56 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > The policy has been to attempt to be bug-compatible with Windows 
> > whenever possible for some time now.
> *whenever possible*

But there's no evidence whatsoever that this is something we can't 
handle...

quoted text
> > No, that's not the only reason for notifications. Alteration in hardware 
> > state may also force a recalculation of trip point (adding a battery to 
> > a bay rather than a DVD drive may require the platform to be kept at a 
> > lower temperature)
> "I've seen no evidence that this happens...", but I see the point.

It's explicitly mentioned as one of the use cases for trip point 
alteration in the spec.

quoted text
> > Surely people want this functionality so that they can raise trip 
> > points?
> For Adrian it would be enough to be able to lower them.

Which suggests that we're probably doing something wrong at some more 
fundamental level...

quoted text
> Also being able to define a passive trip point (even if not provided by
> BIOS) could help a lot machines.

I agree that being able to lower trip points is unlikely to result in 
hardware damage, but still think that it's likely to be papering over 
genuine bugs that we could fix properly.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org
-
unsubscribe notice
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/