Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 11:01:24 -0600 From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: acpi@freebsd.org, arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Removing acpi.ko support Message-ID: <8019DAB7-8276-451D-812D-2C5EAB8F6CB9@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <201010281254.39862.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <201010281254.39862.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Oct 28, 2010, at 10:54 AM, John Baldwin wrote: > [ cc'ing acpi@ to be safe, but I think the topic warrants the wider = audience=20 > of arch@ ] >=20 > I think we should drop support for having acpi load as a module for = i386. It=20 > adds extra complication and hacks to the i386 APIC and interrupt code = that are=20 > gratuitously different from amd64 as a result. Originally it was made = a=20 > module so that GENERIC on i386 did not include ACPI by default but = would only=20 > use up memory to hold ACPI-related code if the machine supported ACPI. = Now=20 > that acpi is part of GENERIC on i386 in 8.0 and later this argument is = no=20 > longer relevant. I'd like to remove support for ACPI as a module to = remove=20 > the various hacks on i386 and reduce differences with amd64. >=20 Just to be clear, it'll still be an optional kernel device, it just = won't be a KLD anymore, right? If you do that, what will happen with = the evil bootloader code that gropes around for the AML tables and = auto-loads the module? Is there any reason to keep that around for = compatibility? If it goes away, don't forget to also update the = bootforth code that knows how to manipulate it. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8019DAB7-8276-451D-812D-2C5EAB8F6CB9>