[lkml]   [2009]   [Jun]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC/PATCH 2.6.32] Simple Firmware Interface (SFI): initial support
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 02:41:28PM -0400, Len Brown wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > There seems to be a huge amount of overlap between SFI and ACPI.
> > Couldn't this have simply taken the form of some additional ACPI tables
> > and a decoupling of ACPI enumeration from runtime AML interpretation?
> > How final is this spec?
> > I realise that we're pretty much constrained to implementing this if
> > hardware actually ships with it, but it seems to be an additional
> > firmware interface with no real benefit - as far as I can tell it's not
> > possible for a platform to meaningfully implement both ACPI and SFI
> > without duplicating information?
> Please let me know if your questions are not thoroughly answered here:

Yeah, I read that and it didn't really seem to clear things up. There's
no especially meaningful reason for a specialised platform to include
any AML code - the closest equivalent case I'm thinking of is "acpi=ht"
where we parse some static ACPI tables but don't do any runtime
interpretation. In this universe, SFI would simply have been some
specced additional tables and a build option to include table parsing
but not the interpreter.

I appreciate that if this is what's going to be on the hardware then
we're stuck with it, but I'm hugely unconvinced that this couldn't have
taken the form of "embedded ACPI" rather than an entire new firmware

Matthew Garrett |

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-06-23 20:55    [W:0.104 / U:2.508 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site