Eric W. Biederman
ebiederman at lnxi.com
Thu Mar 11 05:55:01 CET 2004
YhLu <YhLu at tyan.com> writes:
> It seems that you put some code about acpi in the tree.
> What's your plan about that?
Currently ACPI support exists simply to provide the extra ACPI tables.
No AML currently exists.
We need to get enough IRQ information in the device tree so we can
auto generate these kinds of tables.
> Can I use that together with ACPI support in Kernel to make "shutdown -h
> now" to be real shutdown the power?
That would not be the worst thing to implement. However we have not
gone there yet.
If the BIOS has to implement services an interpreted byte code where
the kernel provides the interpreter at least gives the kernel guys
the option of catching bugs, and working around them. I completely
prefer AML over BIOS callbacks.
Is AML turing complete?
It would be nice if the hardware was standardized enough that simple
things like this were architectural instead of needing BIOS work.
More information about the coreboot