[PATCH 0/2] ACPI: processor / EC enablement for core i7 platforms

Alex Chiang alex at chizang.net
Tue Jan 26 20:12:57 UTC 2010

* Stefan Bader <stefan.bader at canonical.com>:
> Alex Chiang wrote:
> > 
> > Len told me on irc that he plans on marking it for -stable, but
> > hasn't gotten around to it yet.
> The first one I think is ok to have in Karmic. Depending on the
> upstream stable submission it might land in Lucid without further
> effort (Greg is queuing up for but I had no time to look into
> those), so maybe its there or not. But given the current speed it
> would work if This is forwarded to stable soon.

I poked lenb today to remind him to send the patch onto stable, so it
should appear soon.

> To include it into Karmic, we have to open a Launchpad bug about it,
> so we can link the SRU request and patch to it.

Ok, I can do that. Anything special I should mark in Launchpad? Or just
reply here with the id after filing the bug?

> > To make a long story short(er), I cherry-picked the 3 patches (out
> > of the 14 upstream ones) that actually enable the platforms, and
> > left out all the code cleanup stuff.
> I only glanced over the patch and so this is not the last word. But
> generally its size and the fact that it moves around code at the same
> time make me a bit reluctant to pick it for Karmic. Even tough it
> allows running Karmic on additional hardware. With the other changes
> it is harder to tell whether the code does the same without opting in.

I agree that the patch is hard to read unless you're intimately familiar
with it. Sorry about that; like I said, I really wasn't thinking
backport at the time, so what I sent you was the best I could do. :-/

> So for Karmic at least I would rather see a patch that is minimalistic
> in change. OTOH I am not sure this is worth effort on Karmic as the
> window for non-critical and non-security fixes is closing mid-Feb.

Fair enough. I'm less concerned about Karmic for this patch than I am
with Lucid.

> But probably Andy thinks the same for Lucid and we should try to get a
> minimal patch suitable for stable out of this.  [Again this should get
> its own bug report to track things]

After talking with lenb today, we decided to mark the early _PDC patches
for stable too, on the justification that:

	a) it enables real machines
	b) the opt-in mechanism limits the amount of potential regressions

So lenb will send these patches for -stable rather soon. I can open
another bug for the _PDC patches.

Anything else I should do?


More information about the kernel-team mailing list