Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 02:25:29 -0800 From: Michael Smith <msmith@freebsd.org> To: "Petr Holub" <hopet@ics.muni.cz> Cc: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@village.org>, rob@pythonemproject.com, jhb@FreeBSD.ORG, jgowdy@home.com, freebsd-mobile@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ACPI Message-ID: <200201141025.g0EAPTt04251@mass.dis.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 14 Jan 2002 10:12:09 %2B0100." <008901c19cdb$8b6138e0$2603fb93@kloboucek>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > 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. You are unfortunately sadly mistaken. You can't just backport "some" of ACPI; it's like being "a little bit" pregnant. And frankly, battery state reporting is probably the least interesting reason to get ACPI into a production release; what really counts (and what is hurting us the most) is system resource management and device configuration. 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?200201141025.g0EAPTt04251>