On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Andriy Gapon <a...@freebsd.org> wrote: > I can not bless this change, but I won't argue against it either. > > My opinion is still that OS should advertise to ACPI the capabilities that it > actually has not those that it potentially may have. So I prefer the status > quo. I think that this is a minor issue and cpufreq should just be in kernel, > and that's it. >
May I know your concern? My understanding is that ACPI may export different interfaces according to _PDC evaluation. I think though ACPI may export more than actually used, as long as nobody is playing with the additional interfaces, there should be no side effects. Or these interfaces may have dependencies or interactions I am not aware of? Flexibility is good as long as it does not introduce too much complexicity. It could have benefit of less compile time, smaller size, less boot up time, etc. Regards, Jia-Shiun. _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
