Contributed by mk/reverse on from the fancy-hardware-technology dept.
Thorsten Lockert recently committed ACPI support:
Log message: Start on a basic ACPI framework -- does not do much more than read out the ACPI tables into kernel memory and attach ACPI and HPET timers currently.
This is very interesting, but the code is not yet feature-complete and requires lots of testing, so it's currently not hooked into the build.
Read the complete commit message.
(Comments are closed)
By Anonymous Coward (194.85.97.83) on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (213.23.134.92) on
Comments
By uriel (82.182.149.44) on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (213.118.35.56) on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (65.167.23.134) on
By Anonymous Coward (204.214.120.254) on
Comments
By tedu (64.173.147.27) on
"I then changed my 0xa7 to 0xa8:"
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/acpi-debug.html
"An easy way to override this is to set hw.acpi.osname="Windows 2001" in /boot/loader.conf"
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/ChangeLog-2.6.11.1
"Some ACPI-related changes were recently made to i8042 discovery for ia64.
Unfortunately this broke a significant number of Dell laptops due to their having incorrect BIOS tables."
Comments
By niallo (207.213.220.253) on
By Anonymous Coward (87.78.0.106) on
microsoft made some "mistakes" in their implementation.
the motherboard makers implemented those mistakes to have their acpi-features supported.
so if you want to develope acpi support you always have to work around those "faulty" mainboards. (sry it's late)
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (207.171.180.101) on
Comments
By Bert (68.100.43.184) blambert at thepresidency dot org on
Comments
By Fábio Olivé Leite (156.153.255.236) fabio.olive@Google Mail on
They used to protect theit monopoly position by the well known "Embrace and Extend" tactics of producing seemingly better protocols/formats only slightly incompatible with the standards. Very soon everybody else who wants to play has to bow and implement the slightly incompatible version and it becomes a de facto standard. The "Embrace and Extend" tactic got too old-fashioned and easy to spot, so now it's been recycled to something like "Embrace and Distort".
In this new "Embrace and Distort" tactic they get standards wrong on purpose so that they still get everyone to jump when they say jump. It doesn't have to be Microsoft ACPI anymore, it's just ACPI. But whoever sets out to implement such distorted standards sooner or later finds out they are heavily influenced by some "[mis-]take" (noun, 5th meaning) from Microsoft.
When people call them on it later on they can always say "Oh, but the standard is so dificult to get right!" (they distorted it) or "Hey, it's a bug!" (feature).
OK, the above sounds conspirational, I have no evidence, no facts, blah blah. Whatever. It's just my opinion.
By Observer (203.26.16.67) on
By Oliver E. (62.65.148.234) on
By Anonymous Coward (213.118.35.56) on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (193.63.217.208) on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (24.130.94.216) on
I don't know about that. I thought Intel has the ACPI code under a BSD-like license. Let me see what I can find about this.
Here's some links. Some are kind of old.
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-984769.htmlhttp://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0302.0/1091.html
http://bsdnews.com/view_story.php3?story_id=3540
Like I said, those links are old but one would gather that the ACPI-CA is under a BSD license. But why do I just not feel 100% sure on that? The real proof would be finding something on Itel's site regarding that, but I didn't find anything in my quick search.
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (193.63.217.208) on
The export restrictions wouldn't be compatible with OpenBSD's goals I think.
By Anonymous Coward (63.174.231.179) on
Comments
By Janne Johansson (82.182.176.20) on
By tedu (64.173.147.27) on