[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1160198598.3000.134.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2006 07:23:18 +0200
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
Cc: "Duran, Leo" <leo.duran@....com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.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 Fri, 2006-10-06 at 19:06 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Duran, Leo wrote:
> > OK, lets' take K8 processor performance states (p-states) as an example:
> > BIOS, which should know 'best' about a given platform, needs to
> > communicate to the OS what 'voltage' (VID code) is correct for given
> > 'frequency' (FID),
> > and it can do that via ACPI processor tables (_PSS). Otherwise, OS code
> > is left with having to manage a HUGE amount 'specifics' (processor
> > models), and endless driver revisions to account for new parts.
> >
> > So, one can argue that there's merit on having ACPI, it's just a shame
> > when BIOS doesn't get it right! (thus the justification for lack of
> > 'trust'... the same can probably be said about other BIOS issues, not
> > just ACPI)
>
> That's pretty much it in a nutshell... Since most BIOS are largely
> tested and qualified only on That Other OS, Linux often gets the short
> end of the stick.
fwiw we're trying to get this changed; Intel released the Linux-ready
firmware developer kit recently which is designed to make it real easy
for bios people to test their bios with linux....
see http://www.linuxfirmwarekit.org
--
if you want to mail me at work (you don't), use arjan (at) linux.intel.com
-
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