From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bas Mevissen Subject: Re: RE: ACPI -- Workaround for broken DSDT Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2004 13:09:15 +0100 Sender: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org Message-ID: <4022326B.2020304@basmevissen.nl> References: <20040205082926.660974d2.ak@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20040205082926.660974d2.ak-l3A5Bk7waGM@public.gmane.org> Errors-To: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: To: Andi Kleen Cc: "Brown, Len" , scott-j3vAvQ9dNB9ByuSxxbvQtw@public.gmane.org, acpi-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org Andi Kleen wrote: > I don't think that's completely true. A lot of the DSDTs I looked > at had special cases for Win98,Win2000,WinXP. Undoubtedly the next > windows versions will also require special cases in the AML. > > Longer term all we can hope for is that the next generation of > BIOS will also have a case for Linux. > > A little bit more bug-to-bug compatibility surely couldn't hurt, > even when Microsoft isn't even compatible to themsevles. > > Like we already have the RELAXED_AML mode and everybody enables it ... > It just isn't often relaxed enough. > Yup, just emulate the latest version of bug-os :-) Seriously, I think the only real solution is an independant qualification program. Vendors can then decide to add extra bug-compatibility for Win2k, WinXp and Linux too. ------------------------------------------------------- The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004 Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA. http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn