On Sun, Jan 04, 2015 at 09:39:24AM +0000, Hanjun Guo wrote: > On 2014年12月25日 01:18, Catalin Marinas wrote: > [...] > > > > In addition to the above and _DSD requirements/banning, I would also add > > some clear statements around: > > > > _OSC: only global/published capabilities are allowed. For > > device-specific _OSC we need a process or maybe we can ban them entirely > > and rely on _DSD once we clarify the process. > > > > _OSI: firmware must not check for certain _OSI strings. Here I'm not > > sure what we would have to do for ARM Linux. Reporting "Windows" does > > not make any sense but not reporting anything can, as Matthew Garrett > > pointed out, can be interpreted by firmware as "Linux". In addition to > > any statements in this document, I suggest you patch > > drivers/acpi/acpica/utosi.c accordingly, maybe report "Linux" for ARM > > and print a kernel warning so that we notice earlier. > > > > ACPI_OS_NAME: this is globally defined as "Microsoft Windows NT". It > > doesn't make much sense in the ARM context. Could we change it to > > "Linux" when CONFIG_ARM64? > > We will work on this both on ASWG and linux ACPI driver side, as Dong > and Charles pointed out, _OSI things can be solved in ACPI spec, when > that is done, we can modify the kernel driver to fix the problems above. Which driver? What about ACPI_OS_NAME? Would you suggest it is fine to report "Microsoft Windows NT" on an ARM system? That _OS_ not _OSI. -- Catalin -- 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
