On 12.03.2009 18:41 Uhr, Peter Stuge wrote:
Stefan Reinauer wrote:
Maybe would be better to have ACPI minimalistic, but usable.
Which parts are not usable?
I think the intention was "the bare minimum" - as it stands that ACPI implementation is a bit, eh, fat.
Again. Which parts? What's fat? How would you solve things differently? Without wiping features that upcoming ports _are_ going to use?
Some analysis shows: - AMD serengeti cheetah has 1500 lines of mainboard specific code and 330 lines of chipset specific code. - Kontron 986LCD-M has 1800 lines of southbridge specific code, 400 lines of northbridge specific code and 500 lines of mainboard specific code.
So the mainboard specific stuff is 1/3 of that of a typical K8/K10 mainboard. Is that really too fat? The whole implementation is 50% bigger than the one on K8/K10 in lines of code.
It does a lot more, too. The final thing is going to do PCIe hotplug, laptop brightness control, vga output switching, etc.
I'm very willing to work with you guys on making this appealing to everyone. But your comments have not been extraordinarily helpful so far, I'm very sorry to say that.
I have to say it's the most readable ASL I've seen though.
Some of the fat could go into mainboard specific ASL rather than have everything in the chipset dirs. But maybe that's a bad idea?
The opposite. Some of the mainboard stuff actually needs to go to the component directories (like superio)
I don't think it makes much sense to go from a nice and modular implementation to a spaghetti code all duplicate mainboard centered one to safe 20 bytes of asl on a platform that might not necessarily need it.
It does go against my idea of keeping code out of the mainboard dir..
Absolutely. The mainboard directory should be selecting and configuring components and be otherwise empty.