On Thu, 15 Jun 2006, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > It's _not_ supposed to be PC-compatible. It just happens to be close > > enough that we can ignore the differences. > > Aha, okay. So it basically needs special config to work, and > complaining that it does not boot noapic is not helpful. No, it doesn't actually need a special config. I can run bog-standard Fedora Core on it, except it needs to be the current development tree in order for grub to not lock up (and again, that was very arguably a grub _bug_ - the Mac Mini doesn't have a keyboard controller, it has USB only, but grub would wait forever for the nonexistant kbd cntroller anyway). So it's not a "legacy PC", but it's certainly "standard Intel chipsets with ACPI". So the same image _should_ really work. Of course, like any other PC, it has its own quirks (aka bugs) in the firmware. > Actually s2ram used to work for quite long time... I know. On _some_ machines. So far, I don't think I've actually ever hit a machine where it "just worked". Every single time there's some module that needs to be unloaded for it to boot, or it needs to use fbcon, or it needs some other magic. I'd really like for it to "just work", and having more people who can try to debug why it doesn't work for them is probably the best way to get there. I know from personal experience that at least _one_ reason why people didn't even bother debugging it was that there simply wasn't anythign to debug. There was just a dead brick. It's that "it's just a dead brick" part I want to fix. I want to turn that into "it's a dead brick that I can look inside". Linus
