On Tue, 2005-12-06 at 15:25 -0800, Andrew Grover wrote:
> Where possible ACPI does still use tables. For more complicated
> configuration, ACPI uses easily-decompiled bytecodes. I think if the
> graphics bios provided arch-neutral AML for doing all this
> mode-setting stuff we'd be better off. Better than interpreting x86
> real-mode BIOS code!
This is true. Real drivers with only _tables_ to describe the hardware
would be best, but AML would be at least be better than i386 code, if we
have to settle for something less.
> You have to get a priori information about the system somewhere. With
> ACPI at least it's not a complete mystery what the BIOS is doing,
> unlike these video BIOSes.
Actually, the one time I tried to decompile a DSDT it was a Dell
Inspiron which did _everything_ through SMM traps. It was more opaque
even than a binary-only driver (or BIOS). At least with i386-code I have
_some_ hope of tracing it, if I have enough time and patience.
--
dwmw2
-
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]
