[OLPC-devel] Why ACPI DSDT tables?

[Jim Gettys]

I think David is making a good point here.

I'd just as soon not be in left field on these interfaces unless there
is a good reason, much as we detest ACPI.
                               Regards,
                                  - Jim


On Mon, 2006-07-10 at 12:19 -0400, David Zeuthen wrote:
> 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.
> 
> How do you expect to export things like battery and "on ac power?"
> information to userspace? Frankly, the interfaces the Linux kernel
> exports for these all suck (/proc/acpi, apm, pmu, etc.) but we work
> around that in HAL... and now you want to add *another* interface?
> 
>     David
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Devel mailing list
> Devel at laptop.org
> http://mailman.laptop.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
-- 
Jim Gettys
One Laptop Per Child