Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 02:15:10 -0800 (PST) From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Petr Holub <hopet@ics.muni.cz> Cc: freebsd-mobile@FreeBSD.ORG, jgowdy@home.com, rob@pythonemproject.com, "M. Warner Losh" <imp@village.org> Subject: RE: ACPI Message-ID: <XFMail.020114021510.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <008901c19cdb$8b6138e0$2603fb93@kloboucek>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 14-Jan-02 Petr Holub wrote: >> Backporting all of ACPI is likely to be difficult. It has tendrils >> into a lot of different parts of the system. I'd love to see it back >> ported as well, but I suspect that the time it will take to do it will >> mean that it isn't MFC'd until after 5.0 is released. > > Well - what I was thinking about was to backport only some > parts of it. I do understand that backporting all the features > for all the drivers would mean tremendous effort. But backporting > only the very basic features like battery reporting shouldn't > be so difficult. And this is the most important feature I miss. It's not that simple. ACPI is not a collectino of device drivers, it's an all-or-nothing deal, and we don't even do all of it in current yet. Once you start using ACPI, you basically tell the BIOS you are going to manage it all yourself, you don't get to let the BIOS handle part of it and you handle just the parts you want to handle. -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-mobile" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.020114021510.jhb>