From owner-acpi-jp@jp.freebsd.org  Sun Nov  4 04:52:03 2001
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by castle.jp.freebsd.org (8.9.3+3.2W/8.7.3) id EAA02321;
	Sun, 4 Nov 2001 04:52:03 +0900 (JST)
	(envelope-from owner-acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org)
Received: from mass.dis.org (mass.dis.org [216.240.45.41])
	by castle.jp.freebsd.org (8.9.3+3.2W/8.7.3) with ESMTP id EAA02316
	for <acpi-jp@jp.freebsd.org>; Sun, 4 Nov 2001 04:52:01 +0900 (JST)
	(envelope-from msmith@mass.dis.org)
Received: from mass.dis.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mass.dis.org (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id fA3JqdV01241
	for <acpi-jp@jp.freebsd.org>; Sat, 3 Nov 2001 11:52:39 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from msmith@mass.dis.org)
Message-Id: <200111031952.fA3JqdV01241@mass.dis.org>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999
To: acpi-jp@jp.freebsd.org
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 03 Nov 2001 21:52:47 +0900."
             <20011103.215247.74755901.iwasaki@jp.FreeBSD.org> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2001 11:52:39 -0800
From: Mike Smith <msmith@freebsd.org>
Reply-To: acpi-jp@jp.freebsd.org
Precedence: list
X-Distribute: distribute version 2.1 (Alpha) patchlevel 24e+010328
X-Sequence: acpi-jp 1429
Subject: [acpi-jp 1429] Re: DSDT Override 
Errors-To: owner-acpi-jp@jp.freebsd.org
Sender: owner-acpi-jp@jp.freebsd.org
X-Originator: msmith@freebsd.org

> > Just as long as people understand that this sort of table override may
> > lead to other, subtle and irritating bugs depending on the AML in question.
> > 
> > Especially, constants in the namespace aren't where the BIOS thinks they ar
> e,
> > so eg. thermal zone Notify events won't work like they should.
> 
> Hmm, ACPI 1.0b and 2.0 Spec state that ACPI Reclaim Memory can be
> available RAM usable by the OS after it reads the ACPI tables
> (in 15. System Address Map Interfaces).
> So my understanding is that the BIOS never update ACPI Reclaim Memory
> which contains ACPI tables.

Good point.

I guess that the Notify behaviour would have to refer to space defined 
outside the DSDT.

> I think DSDT overriding is very important for our further development
> and debugging and improvement of ACPI CA code.  I really want to
> support it...

I agree.

> > I would be much happier if it was possible to override small portions of th
> e
> > namespace, rather than being forced into this all-or-nothing situation.
> 
> Yeah, it's very nice for partial fix of DSDT.  But I believe that BIOS
> bug fix is BIOS vendor's job, not ours.

I don't understand you here; it sounds like you are disagreeing with your 
previous statement.

At any rate, please do go ahead with the DSDT override functionality.  

-- 
... every activity meets with opposition, everyone who acts has his
rivals and unfortunately opponents also.  But not because people want
to be opponents, rather because the tasks and relationships force
people to take different points of view.  [Dr. Fritz Todt]
           V I C T O R Y   N O T   V E N G E A N C E


