Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: patch to include a custom dsdt]]

Stefan Schweizer
2004-08-09T20:02:15Z

> Yes, the dsdt-in-initrd patch works.
> Yes, it is perfect for the unfortunate but determined soul who
> administers a variety of broken machines where they all run the same
> kernel and require a different DSDT -- I really do feel sorry for that
> person and look forward to the day they find non-broken hardware.

I only use it on one machine and if I want to change the dsdt I dont
want to recompile my kernel.
>
> But DSDT overrides are for developers, not end-users, not customers.
> Nobody can support the OEM's firmware, or a modified version of it
> except the OEM themselves. If a developer happens to fix an OEM's
> firmware and sends the OEM the fix, that happy situation is purely
> between the end-user and the OEM. Distros should absolutely never
> be in the business of supporting hardware running modified firmware.
Right, distros should not support it, but people who know what they do
should have the ability to do it easy and w/o recompiling the kernel.

> I think that one major Distro pulled the dsdt-in-initrd patch, and I
> think it was a mistake for them to do so -- they can't support it.
They do not need to support it - if people use it, its on their own risk.

> That said, it is useful for developers to be able to override the DSDT.
> There are two methods -- re-build kernel or re-build kernel and also
> modify the initrd.
the difference is I can do the second one without looking into the
howto, because i know where my initrd is - in fact it is the DSDT.aml.
For the first method I would need to know the place where to copy the
dsdt - and always recompile/recopy/reinstall the kernel for minimal
changes.

> Kernel re-build is (I think) simple enought. I think the patch at hand
> takes it from simple to trivial.

> Kernel re-build + initrd update I dislike because it depends on the
> existence of an initrd (not everybody uses has an initrd, I haven't used
> an initrd in over a year), and worse, it depends on the format of the
> initrd, which we don't control.
Initramfs would be the solution here - why not use it as additional method?
>
> Anyway, I hope that my position, and the reason I haven't pulled the
> perfectly functional and useful dsdt-in-initrd patch before is clear.
Can you not just provide all possibilities, so that the user, sorry
the "developer", can decide himself how he wants to override his
initrd?