On Thu, 27 Dec 2007, Robert Hancock wrote:
>
> I doubt they would prefer the later ordering in any way that matters, if the
> Windows version they were designed for uses the earlier ordering.
Well, I wouldn't say it's abotu "preferring" one over the other. It's very
possible that the BIOS writers were *intending* to prefer ACPI 2.0, and it
may even be likely that they thought that they wrote it that way, but the
real issue is that it has apparently never ever been *tested* that way.
So yes, maybe the vendors actually thought they were a good ACPI-2.0
implementation, but if Windows doesn't do the ordering that the 2.0 spec
expects, then that is pretty much just a theoretical thing.
But yeah, it would be really nice to have this verified some way. Somebody
must already know (whether it's a VM person or a BIOS writer, and whether
they'd tell us, is obviously another issue).
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
