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

Len Brown
2004-08-09T19:41:08Z

On Mon, 2004-08-09 at 14:28, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> On 09 Aug 2004 12:59:16 -0400, Len Brown <len.brown <at> intel.com>
> wrote:
> > This looks handy.
> > comments?
>
> You should take the patch of Michael Blumenstein for initrd support:
>
> http://gaugusch.at/kernel.shtml
>
> http://gaugusch.at/acpi-dsdt-initrd-patches/acpi-dsdt-initrd-patch-v0.4-2.6.7.patch
>
> I use it and I can confirm that it works :)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Any comments on the patch at hand?

thanks,
-Len