[OLPC-devel] Why ACPI DSDT tables?

[Jim Gettys]

How much/whether we'll use any of the ACPI stuff is far from clear; as
Dave says, it is not very useful for us.

That being said, having a DSDT table may be helpful for those who are
silly enough to want to run some other operating system ;-).  So I don't
see it doing much/any harm to provide one.
                                    Regards,
                                          - Jim


On Mon, 2006-07-10 at 14:10 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> 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.
> 
-- 
Jim Gettys
One Laptop Per Child