The first CyanogenMod 13.0 release

Posted Mar 17, 2016 13:07 UTC (Thu) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
In reply to: The first CyanogenMod 13.0 release by pizza
Parent article: The first CyanogenMod 13.0 release

> turned out to cause other problems elsewhere.

The code in question is gated behind a DMI check that only runs on the specific laptop. How could it cause problems elsewhere?

The first CyanogenMod 13.0 release

Posted Mar 17, 2016 13:48 UTC (Thu) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link] (3 responses)

Is the XPS 13 (model 9343) the only system override gated by CONFIG_ACPI_REV_OVERRIDE_POSSIBLE? If so, I retract my statement.

But I will quote Comment 14 on that RHBZ #1313434:

"FYI, CONFIG_ACPI_REV_OVERRIDE_POSSIBLE causes the 32-bit kernel to reboot
as soon as the 32-bit kernel boots."

Which seems like a more serious problem than not having sound.

The first CyanogenMod 13.0 release

Posted Mar 17, 2016 14:38 UTC (Thu) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (2 responses)

> Is the XPS 13 (model 9343) the only system override gated by CONFIG_ACPI_REV_OVERRIDE_POSSIBLE? If so, I retract my statement.

Yes.

> "FYI, CONFIG_ACPI_REV_OVERRIDE_POSSIBLE causes the 32-bit kernel to reboot
as soon as the 32-bit kernel boots."

I'd be pretty amazingly astonished if this is true, since the only thing the code does is set a flag that causes the kernel to revert to its <4.2 behaviour.

The first CyanogenMod 13.0 release

Posted Mar 17, 2016 16:09 UTC (Thu) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link] (1 responses)

> I'd be pretty amazingly astonished

I find this amusing that you'd be astonished by any hardware foolishness after staring in the gaping abyss of low level boot code for so long.

The first CyanogenMod 13.0 release

Posted Mar 17, 2016 19:44 UTC (Thu) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]

Shrug. I can imagine some hilarious corner cases where some SMM code assumed a 64-bit kernel if _REV gave 5, but in that case it'd have been broken in <4.2 as well.