On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 20:25:53 -0500 Youness Alaoui <kakar...@kakaroto.homelinux.net> wrote:
> In my opinion, the ME is indeed disabled because the entire ME > functionality is disabled, no ME processes are running, and the kernel > on its own is irrelevant, even if it keeps running. > However, I do not have anymore a strong counter opinion to your > statement that you don't consider the ME to be disabled as I > originally did. > It all depends on how we choose to see it, I consider it to be > disabled, and you consider that it's not. It will always differ on > each person's interpretation of the definition of the word "disabled". [...] > All I could find online about the actual definition of the word > "disabled" is either : [...] > * "rendered inoperative (as by being damaged or deliberately > altered)" (Merriam-Webster dictionary) [...] > * "to make ineffective or inoperative" (Merriam-Webster dictionary) > * "To deprive of capability or effectiveness, especially to impair I find it more interesting to try to explain what is really going on to people, by using some construct like that: "disabled/limited/etc" by <Setting the HAP BIT>, with the first part being a judgment of the person writing that over what is acceptable or not, and the last part that tries to explain what it really means, so the people reading it could still have their own judgment on whether they consider it acceptable or not. Denis.
pgpUKR6tBdt6W.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
