> We're depending on vendors (aka the BIOS) for all the ACPI tables, as well
> as every other piece of a priori data we need to boot the OS.
They have had enough problems getting simpler API's right. The ACPI spec is
bloated, complex, and very hard to follow - and its written in my native
language. I really do not envy a random BIOS writers task.
> Could I please ask that you at least show me a system where this is a
> problem before throwing out all the work we've done on ACPI because of this
> technical nit?
The goal isnt a technical nit, its to avoid loading 300Kbytes of crud (which
should mostly be in user space anyway) on the 99.9% of machines where we dont
need it.
The user space thing isnt an idle comment btw, its something that I think we
should actively pursue for 2.5. By making better use of initrd and the clean
ramfsroot stuff Al wants to do we can push a lot of stuff (bootp, dhcp,
dmi based configuration fixups, acpi) almost entirely into user space.
That makes me a lot lot happier.
The fact that it takes more code to parse and interpret ACPI than it does to
route traffic on the internet backbones should be a hint something is badly
wrong either in ACPI the spec, ACPI the implenentation or both.
Reading the code I can find some examples of pointless code bloat, but not
enough to convince me the broken part isnt the spec.
Alan
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 07 2001 - 21:00:12 EST