Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753996AbZFXUCb (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:02:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754894AbZFXUCG (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:02:06 -0400 Received: from atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz ([195.113.26.193]:56039 "EHLO atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753947AbZFXUCF (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:02:05 -0400 Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 21:43:03 +0200 From: Pavel Machek To: Len Brown Cc: Matthew Garrett , sfi-devel@simplefirmware.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 2.6.32] Simple Firmware Interface (SFI): initial support Message-ID: <20090622194303.GC2284@ucw.cz> References: <1245741246-6503-1-git-send-email-lenb@kernel.org> <20090623183153.GB12814@srcf.ucam.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1407 Lines: 30 On Tue 2009-06-23 14:41:28, Len Brown wrote: > On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > There seems to be a huge amount of overlap between SFI and ACPI. > > Couldn't this have simply taken the form of some additional ACPI tables > > and a decoupling of ACPI enumeration from runtime AML interpretation? > > How final is this spec? > > > I realise that we're pretty much constrained to implementing this if > > hardware actually ships with it, but it seems to be an additional > > firmware interface with no real benefit - as far as I can tell it's not > > possible for a platform to meaningfully implement both ACPI and SFI > > without duplicating information? > > Please let me know if your questions are not thoroughly answered here: > http://simplefirmware.org/faq It really tells us nothing. I don't think flash got so expensive that this is justified. ACPI can already do the job, right? and operating systems already have to support ACPI. So what are the reasons to reinvent the wheel? Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- 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/