[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200610070001.01752.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2006 00:01:01 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
discuss@...-64.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] Re: Please pull x86-64 bug fixes
On Friday, 6 October 2006 18:07, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Fri, 6 Oct 2006, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> >
> > we can do a tiny bit better than the current code; some chipsets have
> > the address of the MMIO region stored in their config space; so we can
> > get to that using the old method and validate the acpi code with that.
>
> Yes. I think trusting ACPI is _always_ a mistake. It's insane. We should
> never ask the firmware for any data that we can just figure out ourselves.
>
> And we should tell all hardware companies that firmware tables are stupid,
> and that we just want to know what the hell the registers MEAN!
>
> I've certainly tried to tell Intel that. I think they may even have heard
> me occasionally.
>
> I can't understand why some people _still_ think ACPI is a good idea..
I violently agree.
Rafael
--
You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
R. Buckminster Fuller
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists