"BALBIR SINGH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > So, Can I draw the following conclusions from the discussions > so far? > > 1. LinuxBios would like TODO something similar to ACPI > for the configuration tables, but not exactly what > ACPI does. This brings me to a question, what does > a BIOS need todo in order to be called an ACPI BIOS? > My feeling is create the tables and implement E820. > I am yet to read the complete ACPI spec. The reason > for not implementing ACPI is to keep the tables simple > and maybe ACPI is over bloat or insufficient or simply > unnecessary (I am speculating this).
ACPI tables require an AML interpreter to read. I'm not in favor of needing an interpreter, for something so simple. > 2. The ACPI aware things in h/w like some of the devices > on the LPC chip, can still be enabled by LinuxBios. Correct. > 3. LinuxBios will come up with its own way of exporting > devices to the OS, in a way Patrick just described. Correct. > Did I miss something? Only the reason why ACPI is nasty. Eric
