On Thursday, 25 October 2007 22:29, Len Brown wrote: > On Thursday 25 October 2007 15:24, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote: > > Len Brown wrote: > > > > and going away), and the DSDT databse -- which I believe > > > is also somewhat of a historical artifact. > > > DSDT database or better acpidump.out database might be very useful, > > if could be searched for particular feature -- absence of EC, use of SBS, etc. > > True. > > I don't like the original DSDT database -- it was from an era > when people thought that it was a good idea to hack a DSDT > to workaround Linux failures and share the hacked DSDT > with others. That was a bad strategy and it should be abandoned. > DSDT hacking is for Linux debugging only -- Linux should > always be made to work with an un-modified DSDT. I violently agree. > yes, acpidump would be more useful than just the DSDT -- > as we get all kinds of issues with all the tables. > > One problem is that shipping around BIOS images, particularly > modified ones, is sort of a touchy area. This is the code > of the manufacturer, who may or may not be happy that the > community is hacking their code. If any of those manufactureres > got mad at Intel for mucking with their BIOS code, > that would be a bad day for we Intel employees. > > lesswatts.org is hosted by Intel. So we'd need to > sort though this issue before adding an acpidump database. Well, we have suspend.sf.net and the acpidump database can safely be put in there, I think. ;-) Greetings, Rafael - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
