Re: [coreboot] Discussion about fixing dead code / ACPI TRAP

2017-07-06 Thread Nico Huber
On 01.07.2017 15:20, Patrick Rudolph wrote: > Hello community, > I'll want to start a discussion about fixing dead code. > > How it all started: > I tried to run docking code on Lenovo T400 and found it's not working. > While investigation it turns out that the ACPI TRAP mechanism is being > used,

Re: [coreboot] Discussion about fixing dead code / ACPI TRAP

2017-07-06 Thread Nico Huber
On 06.07.2017 17:37, Peter Stuge wrote: > Stefan Reinauer wrote: >> (it was just copy-catted around from my original i945 implementation) >> But I don't think that we should remove the knowledge from the code base. > > So it is a technology showcase and not required code. It might have started as

Re: [coreboot] Discussion about fixing dead code / ACPI TRAP

2017-07-06 Thread Peter Stuge
Stefan Reinauer wrote: > (it was just copy-catted around from my original i945 implementation) > But I don't think that we should remove the knowledge from the code base. So it is a technology showcase and not required code. Those two should never be allowed to mix, and Patrick has found one inst

Re: [coreboot] Discussion about fixing dead code / ACPI TRAP

2017-07-03 Thread Stefan Reinauer
On 01-Jul-17 06:20, Patrick Rudolph wrote: Hello community, I'll want to start a discussion about fixing dead code. How it all started: I tried to run docking code on Lenovo T400 and found it's not working. While investigation it turns out that the ACPI TRAP mechanism is being used, and that i

[coreboot] Discussion about fixing dead code / ACPI TRAP

2017-07-01 Thread Patrick Rudolph
Hello community, I'll want to start a discussion about fixing dead code. How it all started: I tried to run docking code on Lenovo T400 and found it's not working. While investigation it turns out that the ACPI TRAP mechanism is being used, and that it doesn't start the SMM handler. The mechanism