lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Oct]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [discuss] Re: Please pull x86-64 bug fixes
FromArjan van de Ven <>
DateSat, 07 Oct 2006 07:23:18 +0200
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@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-10-07 07:27    [from the cache]
©2003-2008