Ben oui l'exemple est mal choisi, parce que deja le compilo genere du code standard quand tu ne fais pas l'idiot, et qu'ensuite je t'invite a lire les commentaires ici :
Since then, Windows has ended up more spec-compliant and ACPI tables have got more compatible. It'd be nice to blame Linux's ACPI problems on Microsoft, but the fact remains that most of the problems we've hit in power management have been bugs in the Linux kernel - things like not reprogramming hardware correctly when resuming, executing ACPI methods in the wrong order, not executing some ACPI methods at all, hardware vendors not documenting their own deviations from the specification, that sort of thing. Like I said, this stuff is hard, and people have only really started working on it in the last couple of years.
Et qui est mjg59 ? C'est Matthew Garrett, un des dev kernel pour ACPI !
[^] # Re: Pas intéressant ?
Posté par pasBill pasGates . En réponse à la dépêche UEFI en question. Évalué à -4.
Ben oui l'exemple est mal choisi, parce que deja le compilo genere du code standard quand tu ne fais pas l'idiot, et qu'ensuite je t'invite a lire les commentaires ici :
http://www.osnews.com/thread?230525
mjg59 ecrit :
Since then, Windows has ended up more spec-compliant and ACPI tables have got more compatible. It'd be nice to blame Linux's ACPI problems on Microsoft, but the fact remains that most of the problems we've hit in power management have been bugs in the Linux kernel - things like not reprogramming hardware correctly when resuming, executing ACPI methods in the wrong order, not executing some ACPI methods at all, hardware vendors not documenting their own deviations from the specification, that sort of thing. Like I said, this stuff is hard, and people have only really started working on it in the last couple of years.
Et qui est mjg59 ? C'est Matthew Garrett, un des dev kernel pour ACPI !