* Thomas Renninger <trenn@suse.de> wrote:

quoted text
> The *reevaluate* implies that the _PPC value has been 
> evaluated/initialized by the OS already and Ingo's patch would be 
> wrong then. I'd like to have a look at the T60's ACPI parts and 
> find out what exactly (or if at all) makes _PPC to return sane 
> values, I expect it's _PDC.
> 
> Hmm, I could also imagine that Ingo's T60 patch is not needed 
> anymore since Yakui's patch 
> (0ac3c571315a53c14d2733564f14ebdb911fe903). This one could make 
> sure that _PDC is evaluated first making the internal ACPI _PPC 
> state initialize and makes sure _PPC gets only called afterwards.
> 
> If this patch does not break Ingo's T60, I think this should go 
> in. Due to Yakui's reordering/cleanup of ACPI function calls, I 
> think also the notifier chain I introduced is not needed anymore 
> and I can clean this up if I find some time.

Feel free to do so, if it's expected to work. I'll let you know if 
it breaks the T60 box - i still have it in the -tip test mix.

Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

	Ingo
--
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/