On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 01:15:50PM +0200, Stefan Reinauer wrote: > * Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070718 12:43]: > > Hm. Can we abuse ACPI to do that? Like accessing SystemCMOS from a > > _INI function? > > Possibly. But ACPI is running very early in the game. Where would we > hook it up? > > This would also establish ACPI as a pretty hard requirement. There > should be an alternative, too. > > Using ACPI here would be nicely transparent though, hiding firmware > specifics in the firmware code. I like that approach.
We want to use less ACPI, not more, right? Tempting as it may be, can't we find a better way? On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 04:13:24PM +0200, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote: > http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/resources/respec/specs/simp_bios.mspx > For the real spec, see > http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/resources/respec/specs/simp_boot.mspx > or google for "sbf21.doc". I have not read the real spec because I > didn't want to agree to their LA. Also see Dell's patent: http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6640316.html or just google simple boot flag. This article is informative: http://www.rtcmagazine.com/home/article.php?id=100333 It seems that the simple boot flag is merely intended to control what parts of POST is performed. Not a perfect fit for us.. > Since I just discovered the Microsoft approach, I doubt we would > want to invent our own mechanism. But they are two different problems. We could use the simple boot flag to do clever things during init (like cache a list of register writes) but normal vs. fallback is AFAIK a new concept at least in PC firmware so there's no existing mechanism that really fits. //Peter -- linuxbios mailing list [email protected] http://www.linuxbios.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios
