Messages in this thread | | | Subject | RE: [discuss] Re: Please pull x86-64 bug fixes | Date | Sun, 8 Oct 2006 15:59:56 -0500 | From | "Duran, Leo" <> |
| |
On Fri, 6 Oct 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>On Fri, 6 Oct 2006, Duran, Leo wrote: >> So, one can argue that there's merit on having ACPI > >Not really. > >The thing is, you have two choices: > - define interfaces in hardware > - not doing so, and then trying to paper it over with idiotic tables.
I would have to agree that having HW describe itself makes sense, and would certainly negate the need for 'static' ACPI tables that attempt doing that.
But, allow me to cite another example to reinforce my point about the merit of ACPI: Staying with processor power management interfaces, how about 'dynamic' interfaces such as _PPC? _PPC describes to the OS the platform's desired behavior based on some event, like unplugging the power-cord on a laptop - I find merit on that kind of platform-to-OS communication mechanism (I don't like the idea of having the platform making decisions & taking actions behind the OS's back... and even if it had to, I like the idea of at least providing some kind of notification, which is possible via ACPI interfaces).
Leo Duran.
- 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/
| |