Eric W. Biederman ebiederman at
Wed Jun 2 04:56:01 CEST 2004

Stefan Reinauer <stepan at> writes:

> Hi,
> * Eric W. Biederman <ebiederman at> [040602 06:33]:
> > We certainly need to provide this information, as all motherboard
> > specific information is the province of the motherboard firmware.
> > However I'm not at all convinced that the ACPI tables are the right
> > approach.
> Can you go a bit into detail with this? In earlier discussions I
> understood your standpoint as clearly on the table based side. Whether
> such a table is called ACPI or LBTable is imho just a minor
> implementation detail with the one being supported by more OSes and
> companies while the other is definitely the one with the cleaner design.

At that point I was thinking AML...
Tables are certainly a good thing.  A bad excuse for byte code...
> > At any rate we need to really solve some of the more mundane issues
> > like irq routing properly before we go to far with this.
> Much of this can be described in ACPI tables, dropping the need for
> MPtables and PIRQ tables. I think the modular concept of LinuxBIOS
> really allows developers to address one issue without hurting
> another. The current way of irq routing is less than elegant, I agree,
> but it does it's job, taking the all-monthly fixing behind into regard.

I guess what I am after is enough structure so that it is hard to implement
something wrong.  Either it is implemented correctly or it is not implemented.
We largely have this in LinuxBIOS because we use the information we export.
This is not a property I want to loose.


More information about the coreboot mailing list