On Tue, 2008-03-18 at 16:32 -0400, Len Brown wrote:
> > > The initrd version of the DSDT override is really for one scenario.
> > > Somebody who has a BIOS that even Windows can't deal with -- so
> > > no amount of "Windows bug compatbility" will help Linux with it.
>
> > No, this is for people getting involved in ACPI.
> > Everybody thinks ACPI is that complicated..., but it's not.
> > It's amazing how far people can debug ACPI bugs (yes, even people who
> > "do not even know" how to compile a kernel) by simply analyzing the ASL
> > BIOS code.
>
> Thomas,
> The justification above is what convinced me
> that we should try to integrate this feature.
> Further, although we failed in 2.6.25,
> I think we should continue to try to get this capability integrated.
>
> If you think it will be useful for additional purposes, that's great.
> As you know, I'm somewhat skeptical, as I've seen huge mistakes such
> as a database of modified BIOS images created and used when the users
> have absolutely no idea what they're doing.
But even here we now have the only existing database for some research.
-> very important IMO.
> But we don't have to
> agree on this to move forward.
I think we fully agree.
I don't mind to add a message in big letters: "Only override the DSDT
for debugging, please report any findings" or whatever, we can add this
ten times in a row, still it is an important feature which is worth
pushing (and getting populate_root_fs being able to be executed earlier
is a feature others also like to see AFAIK).
Thomas
--
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
