RE: bare pci configuration access functions ?

[Grover, Andrew]

> From: Greg KH [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Nice, thanks for pointing that out.  But what about the fact that I
> think we can now start optimizing certain parts of the 
> "generic" code to
> play nicer with Linux?

It is much much more important that ACPI be *correct* than fast or small. To
that end, it is better to not fork ACPI-Linux from ACPI-everyone else. Linux
benefits from core bugs found by other OSes (FBSD is not the only one - for
some reason I'm not allowed to mention who else is using ACPI CA but they
*do* send bug reports) and vice versa.

> Now I don't mean this to be an ACPI rant, I know why they did 
> their code
> this way, and without it, there probably would not be any ACPI Linux
> code.  I just don't think it's the best way (from an engineering
> standpoint) to do things.  And again, we are getting way off 
> topic from
> the original problem, sorry.

I'm used to ACPI ranting from all quarters, you know that ;-) but let me
just say this:

- ACPI is not performance-critical
- ACPI will never be simple and elegant, even if you made it Linux-specific
- Portability enhances correctness and maximizes developer productivity
- Read my lips, no new taxes!

(dunno where that last one came from ;-)

Regards -- Andy