Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262536AbUKVTfx (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Nov 2004 14:35:53 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262671AbUKVTbJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Nov 2004 14:31:09 -0500 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:41939 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262492AbUKVTYP (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Nov 2004 14:24:15 -0500 Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 11:23:52 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: Len Brown cc: Chris Wright , Adrian Bunk , Bjorn Helgaas , Kernel Mailing List , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: 2.6.10-rc2 doesn't boot (if no floppy device) In-Reply-To: <1101150469.20006.46.camel@d845pe> Message-ID: References: <20041115152721.U14339@build.pdx.osdl.net> <1100819685.987.120.camel@d845pe> <20041118230948.W2357@build.pdx.osdl.net> <1100941324.987.238.camel@d845pe> <1101150469.20006.46.camel@d845pe> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2339 Lines: 62 On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Len Brown wrote: > > I agree that the system should work properly even if the legacy device > drivers are broken. Please understand, however, that the legacy device > drivers _are_ broken. The BIOS via ACPI clearly tells them if the > devices are present or not, and Linux isn't yet listening. I really disagree. I realize that you like ACPI, or you would have shot yourself long long ago. But I have a totally different view on things. To me, firmware is not something cool to be used. It's a necessary evil, and it should be avoided and mistrusted as far as humanly possible, because it is always buggy, and we can't fix the bugs in it. Yes, the current ACPI layer in the kernel is a lot better at working around the bugs, and it's getting to the point where I suspect Linux vendors actually decide that enabing ACPI by default causes fewer problems than it solves. That clearly didn't use to be true. > ACPI-compliant systems have three types of interrupts: Stop right there. "ACPI-compliant systems". The fact is, there is no such thing. There are systems that users buy, and they are not "ACPI compliant", they are "one implementation of ACPI that was tested with a single vendor usage test". Call me cynical, but I believe in standards papers just about as much as I believe in the voices in my attic that tell me to kill the Queen of England. Papers is so much dead trees. The only thing that matters is real life. And like it or not, real life does NOT implement standards properly, even if the standards are well written and unambiguous (which also doesn't actually happen in real life). > If somebody bolts motherboard hardware on and doesn't tell ACPI about > it, then they need to disable ACPI, which _owns_ configuration of > motherboard devices when it is enabled. No. The only thing that owns the motherboard is the user. ACPI shouldn't get uppity. > The damn good reason is that doing otherwise breaks systems. And not doing it breaks systems. See a pattern? This is why I don't trust firmware. It's always buggy. Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/