On Tue, 13 Jun 2000, Jason R Thorpe wrote:

> One of the things that's missing in this discussion is where ACPI fits
> into the grand scheme of things.
> 
> ACPI is *NOT* the correct way to implement MI power management.  Instead,
> we need a higher-level power management API.  ACPI would be just one
> back-end to that high-level API.
> 
> It just seems silly to say "ACPI ACPI ACPI!" when so few of the supported
> NetBSD platforms will actually *have* it (and would thus have to emulate
> it, a pretty gnarly task).

I understand one of Intel's goals it to use ACPI as a general device
identification system, somewhat like OpenFirmware is used by Sun and
Apple.  It's supposed to be the only method of identifying what's on an
ia64 machine.

Eduardo Horvath