Fwd: ACPI support in LinuxBIOS - moderator approval (fwd)

[jarcher at pobox.com]

I mentioned APM because it seemed the simplest.  Realisticaly you'd want to 
follow the LinuxBIOS approach and do minimal stuff at the BIOS level and 
move most of the information to a linux driver.  So really all the BIOS 
portion has to detect and support are the conditions where the CPU goes 
through reset.  This should only be the suspend to ram and the suspend to 
disk states.

So how about a new simple LinuxBIOS PM interface?

Jordan

At 05:18 PM 11/26/2003 +0100, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
>* jarcher at pobox.com <jarcher at pobox.com> [031126 16:32]:
> > I'll raise the question to the next level....
> >
> > Has there been any discussion of putting any power management support into
> > the LinuxBIOS.  I've got a possible need for some basics, like suspend to
> > RAM.  Classic APM might be enough and simple to implement.  ACPI would 
> be a
> > good choice, but I'm not sure about how much ROM foot print would be 
> needed.
>
>Since ACPI is, similar to FCode, an interface based on abstracted binary
>code, it would probably be easier to add ACPI support to LinuxBIOS than
>supporting APM which needs code hooks.
>
>The ACPI tables could be a) generated by or b) stored in LinuxBIOS as is
>and will be found and interpreted by the Linux Kernel. But besides the
>technical issues there's also a legal question when including ACPI tables
>(some are patented by MS and not freely usable iirc, others might be
>copyrighted by Awkward & Co.)
>There are also kernel patches for Linux that allow attaching some of the
>ACPI tables to an initial ramdisk. This can be used to override broken
>bios ACPI tables with corrected ones without reflashing the bios.
>
>Stefan
>
>
>--
>      Stefan Reinauer, SUSE LINUX AG
>Teamleader Architecture Development
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/attachments/20031126/280a9f20/attachment.html>