[OLPC-devel] Why ACPI DSDT tables?

[David Woodhouse]

On Sun, 2006-07-09 at 17:30 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> 
> Skimming the developers list I caught a reference to ACPI DSDT tables.  
> Unless my memory fails me the DSDT tables require interpretation of AML,
> and the AML interpreter in the kernel is big (64K+ last time I
> checked).  With 128MB of RAM it is a cost that can be paid but at
> the same time I think it is expensive enough that if we can avoid them
> it gives more memory to other parts of the system.
> 
> So what is the reason for wanting an ACPI DSDT? 

I can't think of any reason why we'd want something like ACPI. We have
proper hardware documentation -- we don't have to be reduced to that
kind of abomination.

-- 
dwmw2