4 ms·
They're very device tree oriented. They've been using them since "new world PowerPC" Macs in the 90s. Even on x86, their boot loader constructs a device tree
by monocasa 3y ago
They're very device tree oriented. They've been using them since "new world PowerPC" Macs in the 90s. Even on x86, their boot loader constructs a device tree to describe the hardware to the kernel.
- surajrmal 3y agoThey have no incentive to use or benefit from ACPI. They don't have the problem of trying to scale to an innumerable number of hardware permutations. They have a limited set which they control the entire stack of. I would certainly be very confused if they went with such an overkill solution as well.
- tinus_hn 3y agoThis appears logical but the reality is that the only reason you can’t immediately run MacOS on a generic X64 computer is that it doesn’t contain the licensing chip. If you patch out that requirement (using a Hackintosh installation) and covert the ACPI tables into the format used by Apple it runs just fine, for as far as drivers are available for your hardware.
- lmm 3y agoSure, but they don't care about supporting that use pattern. If anything having Hackintoshes break is a bonus to them.