Stefan Reinauer stepan@suse.de writes:
- ron minnich rminnich@lanl.gov [040311 15:16]:
On 11 Mar 2004, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
If the BIOS has to implement services an interpreted byte code where the kernel provides the interpreter at least gives the kernel guys the option of catching bugs, and working around them. I completely prefer AML over BIOS callbacks.
YES!
In case of broken 16bit bioses there might be a point. But for us I don't really see the difference. If it's broken, we can fix it. Even when using callbacks, can't we?
We should. An installed BIOS has an amazing amount of initeria if it is some little thing.
With AML you can load a new version from the OS without having to flash you BIOS so it is safer.
Plus there are issues of needed multiple entry points 32bit 64bit and possibly 16bit depending on which mode the processor is operating in. With byte code you only need to provide one version.
Basically byte code seems much more optional than a magic function you can call. But in the practical it should be possible to fix the firmware, and reflash if we did provide callbacks. I just like to err as far as possible on the side of caution.
My preference is to provide no code that is run after the OS loads, and just to specify some static table entries. The rest is essentially a fallback position.
Eric