To some, yes. To most of the people on this list, it just means that
instead of just needing to test their code and their hardware against
every processor and every chipset, they also need to test it against the
matrix of every chipset and every BIOS codebase, too, since the BIOS can
(and often does) modify the behavior of the underlying chipset. This
exponential increase in variation of the behavior of the platform mostly
means that an IHV can't guarantee you that their hardware works with
every machine in the world. Take, for example, the guy who was asking
about how you guarantee isochronicity on the USB with a BIOS that is
doing 100ms delays.
Subject: Re: UART Handling - was interrupt handshaking
From: "Moreira, Alberto" <email@example.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 13:22:01 -0500
Well, it's nice to have some hardware in the machine that one can use to
under the OS, no ?
From: Bi Chen [mailto:xxxxx@AppStream.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 1:18 PM
To: NT Developers Interest List
Subject: [ntdev] Re: UART Handling - was interrupt handshaking
SMI is used for APM, legacy keyboard/mouse emulation for USB
among other things you guys have mentioned. OS is unware of SMI at all.
SMI asserts, it puts processor into SMM and BIOS SMM code will take
all wish it along with other legacy go away entirely. However, in PC
legacy die extramely hard.