On 03/26/2012 09:46 PM, Peter Stuge wrote: > H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> There are a lot of bootloaders, and one of the most commonly used ones >> has a very adversarial relationship with the kernel maintainers. > > A couple of less commonly used ones, by or near the coreboot project, > haven't exactly been embraced by kernel maintainers. Dunno if it's > because coreboot doesn't much like ACPI, and thinks that it would > be interesting to explore and innovate firmware on x86. > > //Peter I think it is more because coreboot has tried to do things in nonstandard ways rather than fill in the gaps they have. This is getting a *lot* better, as far as I can tell, but in a sane world there shouldn't be any need for "bootloaders by or near the coreboot project" since any standard x86 bootloader should Just Work[TM]. I like to draw parallels with how we dealt with holes in applications in the early days of Linux. For example, when Linux wasn't providing the interfaces that X needed, we didn't add a bunch of Linux-specific code to X, *we added the standard interfaces to Linux*. -hpa -- 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
