Re: [RFC/PATCH 2.6.32] Simple Firmware Interface (SFI): initialsupport

[Pavel Machek]

On Tue 2009-06-23 14:41:28, Len Brown wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> 
> > There seems to be a huge amount of overlap between SFI and ACPI.
> > Couldn't this have simply taken the form of some additional ACPI tables 
> > and a decoupling of ACPI enumeration from runtime AML interpretation? 
> > How final is this spec?
> 
> > I realise that we're pretty much constrained to implementing this if 
> > hardware actually ships with it, but it seems to be an additional 
> > firmware interface with no real benefit - as far as I can tell it's not 
> > possible for a platform to meaningfully implement both ACPI and SFI 
> > without duplicating information?
> 
> Please let me know if your questions are not thoroughly answered here:
> http://simplefirmware.org/faq

It really tells us nothing. I don't think flash got so expensive that
this is justified. ACPI can already do the job, right? and operating
systems already have to support ACPI. So what are the reasons to
reinvent the wheel?
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/