From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Renninger Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI: Provide a spec conform OSI interface to the BIOS Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 19:22:11 +0200 Message-ID: <200807181922.11728.trenn@suse.de> References: <1216316268-24042-1-git-send-email-trenn@suse.de> <48804349.607@linux.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:48236 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752183AbYGRR4R (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Jul 2008 13:56:17 -0400 In-Reply-To: <48804349.607@linux.intel.com> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Andi Kleen Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Friday 18 July 2008 09:16:25 am Andi Kleen wrote: > Thomas Renninger wrote: > > Introduce acpi_osi=windows_false boot parameter > > Introduce CONFIG_ACPI_OSI_SPEC_CONFORM config option > > Why are you adding the CONFIG option? > In what circumstances would one > set it? If anything I think this should be a boot option only for now. E.g. for OEMs that do not need to support all BIOSes in the world who can just check for the config option and then know it behaves as written in the spec and being able to support Linux and Windows through the same BIOS. But you are right, the compile option only makes sense if acpi_osi="Windows 2006" can be used to simulate a specific Windows OS via boot param, which is not the case. But I want the boot param. This one makes very much sense to test BIOSes whether they stick to the ACPI spec and work fine on Linux without Windows simulation. Is that ok? > Probably needs more discussion first. I always wanted to write down the arguments again, but this takes a lot time. Will you accept the boot param only? Thomas