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 [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]
