Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755229AbZFXVNm (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:13:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753147AbZFXVNf (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:13:35 -0400 Received: from vms173015pub.verizon.net ([206.46.173.15]:37413 "EHLO vms173015pub.verizon.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752876AbZFXVNf (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:13:35 -0400 Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:13:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Len Brown X-X-Sender: lenb@localhost.localdomain To: Pavel Machek 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 In-reply-to: <20090622194303.GC2284@ucw.cz> Message-id: References: <1245741246-6503-1-git-send-email-lenb@kernel.org> <20090623183153.GB12814@srcf.ucam.org> <20090622194303.GC2284@ucw.cz> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LFD 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1450 Lines: 34 On Mon, 22 Jun 2009, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Tue 2009-06-23 14:41:28, Len Brown wrote: > > 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? The price of flash, and the amount consumed, is not relevent to the decision whether a platform should support SFI or ACPI. The Moorestown platform doesn't use ACPI because its chip-set fundamentally does not support it. Not only is the required register set missing, *all* IO accesses are missing, and there is no SMM support present to emuate it. Yes, the ACPI specification could have been edited to replace every "must" with "could", "shall" with "may", and "required" with "optional" resulting in "ACPI compliance" for your toaster. But doing so would have been a dis-service to the platforms supporting ACPI, and would have made the already hard job of supporting ACPI from the OS significantly harder. thanks, -Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center -- 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/