[lowrisc-dev] Re: Is a de facto standard memory map helpful or harmful?

Peter Stuge peter at stuge.se
Wed Jul 27 23:11:21 BST 2016

Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> Like on PCs.

Based on a few decades of x86 experience (kernel, firmware, register
level) I will share that lowrisc ought to stay as far away as
absolutely possible from pretty much anything used on PCs.


These are the things that are the most wrong with PCs. Obviously Red Hat
doesn't care, but out here in the rest of the world we need to be more
responsible. Thanks for your comments though.


Besides being proprietary it's not too bad a bus, except electrically.
Something actually open would be far more appropriate for a modern
architecture however.

> ACPI is an actual standard, cross platform, and also includes a way
> to run interpreted code which is useful.

Your sales pitch is dripping with buzzwords.

Anyone who has looked at ACPI specifications or ASL source and has
not already become jaded by all the other ridiculous nonsense created
by MSFT immediately recognizes what a horrible pile of stinking yuck
ACPI actually is.

> MSFT and Red Hat

BFF yeah.

> have pushed hard for ACPI in the ARM server space

Yeah - you really managed to screw ARMv8 up for everyone. Well done!


More information about the lowrisc-dev mailing list