From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@hp.com>
To: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
Cc: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org,
acpi-devel <acpi-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [ACPI] [PATCH] restore _OS object to "Linux" for ia64
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 13:42:02 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1095104522.20631.54.camel@tdi> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1095103349.2512.16.camel@d845pe>
On Mon, 2004-09-13 at 15:22 -0400, Len Brown wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-09-13 at 14:27, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > A recent change to ACPI made the _OS object falsely report the OS as
> > "Microsoft Windows NT". This seems like a slippery slope, and I'd
> > rather not go down it for ia64. I think all of the ia64 OEMs are
> > involved enough with Linux that this isn't necessary and the change
> > limits the options should ACPI firmware need to make an OS specific work
> > around. The patch below will make all ia64 boxes report a default _OS
> > of "Linux".
>
> While I share your pride in Linux, there are a couple of reasons
> why we do not make _OS return "Linux".
>
> _OS is a deprecated interface -- it has been replaced
> by the more flexible _OSI. So with _OS we're talking
> about past, not future systems. And there is a total
> population of 0 systems in the installed base that check
> for _OS ="Linux" in their firmware. On the other hand, there
> are zillions of systems that check for Windows with _OS,
> and the !Windows path through the firmware is effectivly
> unvalidated.
Perhaps true for i386. While I don't know of any ia64 AML that checks
_OS, I do know that we extensively test any !Windows path that exists...
or at least we did.
> While this is really important on i386, it may not be
> important for ia64. However, unless you can show
> me an existing system that checks for _OS=Linux, then
> it only adds risk w/o reward to make this change, even
> if just on ia64. New systems should be using _OSI.
I see the risk in *changing* the _OS, but not in leaving it the way
it was. SLES9 has already shipped based on 2.6.5. That ACPI CA set the
_OS to "Linux". Many platforms have gone through full certification on
that kernel. How is it more risky to stay with "Linux"? If it's a
deprecated interface, why change it at the end of it's life when there
are no known benefits on ia64? Thanks,
Alex
--
Alex Williamson HP Linux & Open Source Lab
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-09-13 19:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-09-13 18:27 [PATCH] restore _OS object to "Linux" for ia64 Alex Williamson
2004-09-13 19:22 ` Len Brown
2004-09-13 19:42 ` Alex Williamson [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-09-13 19:37 [ACPI] " Moore, Robert
2004-09-13 21:30 ` Gerald Pfeifer
2004-09-13 22:19 ` Nate Lawson
2004-09-13 22:59 Moore, Robert
2004-09-14 4:27 ` [ACPI] " Alex Williamson
2004-09-14 15:00 Moore, Robert
2004-09-17 17:18 Moore, Robert
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1095104522.20631.54.camel@tdi \
--to=alex.williamson@hp.com \
--cc=acpi-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=len.brown@intel.com \
--cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox