Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 4 Jun 2002 20:19:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 4 Jun 2002 20:19:38 -0400 Received: from fmr01.intel.com ([192.55.52.18]:42456 "EHLO hermes.fm.intel.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 4 Jun 2002 20:19:37 -0400 Message-ID: <59885C5E3098D511AD690002A5072D3C02AB7EDB@orsmsx111.jf.intel.com> From: "Grover, Andrew" To: "'Dave Jones'" Cc: "'Pavel Machek'" , Brad Hards , Linus Torvalds , Kernel Mailing List Subject: RE: [patch] i386 "General Options" - begone [take 2] Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 16:31:17 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > From: Dave Jones [mailto:davej@suse.de] > > > Can you confirm that you're not advocating a "ACPI or Legacy" > > > approach ? > > > I think you're aware of the dragons that lie that way, but I > > > want to be sure my suspicions are unfounded. > > All I can say is using just *part* of ACPI will cause some machine, > > somewhere, to not work. I want to avoid scenarios where > that happens. If > > there are issues with that, can we discuss them asap, perhaps now? > > Think vendor kernel. There we want to run on ancient pre-ACPI boxes, > and super duper new box with borken/non-existant legacy tables. > So just keep in mind that compiling both into the kernel is a > must have > requirement. Oh. OK. Yes. No disagreement there. -- Andy - 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/