On Friday 05 March 2010 05:58:12 am Bela Lubkin wrote: > It gives you twice as many chances to find a sufficiently > non-buggy table to get on with your work ;-} I think this is the wrong way to look at it. I don't want a "let's try a bunch of things, maybe one will work" plan. In my opinion, it's better to have a single strategy that everybody uses because that one way becomes well-tested and well-understood. Windows only looks at ACPI namespace and PCI, and the obvious consequence is that those mechanisms are tested and tend to work. Linux uses SPMI and SMBIOS and (until recently) ignored the ACPI namespace. SPMI and SMBIOS are redundant copies of what's in the namespace, and that redundancy makes inconsistencies more likely. The result is that (a) we waste the BIOS engineers' time because they have to implement multiple descriptions, (b) we waste our time resolving inconsistencies between the descriptions, and (c) we delay finding and fixing bugs in the canonical ACPI namespace descriptions. Bjorn -- 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
