Loading custom DSDT

[Manuel Moreno]

Dave Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2005 at 10:43:10AM -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
>  
>  > I would like to see a patch like this upstream.  I'm not sure how to
>  > convince Len Brown to let it in.
>  > 
>  > I don't think putting it in Fedora is necessarily a bad idea, but it
>  > is not a slam dunk either (based on support concerns as pointed-out
>  > elsewhere).
> 
> The Intel folks have refused to merge it upstream as they'd rather
> fix the interpretor to work around broken tables.  Some other vendors
> are also very helpful in the "Whack BIOS vendor on the head" dept
> when bad tables get reported to them.
> 
> If Fedora carried such a patch, we could forget all about ever
> looking at fixing ACPI bugs that get reported, as I can guarantee
> we'd get reports that conveniently 'forgot' to mention they've hacked
> their DSDT in wierd and wonderful ways.
> 
> The ability to screw up AML is hurrendously easy, and the number of
> wannabe AML hackers frankly, scares me witless.  A lot of folk seem
> to think that things are as simple as ..
> 
> - disassemble DSDT
> - fix up warnings from AML compiler
> - put DSDT into initrd.
> 
> This is *wrong* on so many levels.  For one, even if it does fix
> the problems the user was seeing, how does it help the next user
> that hits the problem on the same hardware ?  We can't expect
> every user to have to patch their DSDT.  The correct answer
> is "Fix the BIOS", or where that isn't feasible "Work around
> it in the interpretor" (Especially if its a widespread problem).
> 
> 		Dave
> 

I _strongly_ disagree with that and so seems to be the opinion of 
Ubuntu, Mandriva and Novel/SuSe developpers/users and I'm pretty sure 
that they have fair good thinking heads too. Are we facing perhaps the 
NIH RedHat syndrome or is it a desperate and stubborn USA-centric point 
of view from RH far too afraid from USA barrister greed.

-- 
Manuel Moreno
manolo at miconexion.com