Why are patches not listed as source?

[rs1n]

Back in the day (circa Snow Leopard), I remember patches being in the form of source code. Fast forward to current times, everything is listed as HEX code, which is great for quick fixes without having to actually modify the DSDT. However, I find that this obfuscation actually hurts beginners (and even advanced users) because

1) why bother learning about one's own DSDT when a simply trial-and-error series of clicks and rebooting will eventually lead to a (hopefully) working system?

2) those who do want to learn now have to go a round-about way to view the actual changes. This is usually the case where the search pattern is not a perfect match. It would be awesome of the Clover wiki(s) could include the actual source code so that those wanting to learn more about modifying their DSDTs can do so with a bit more ease.

Or am I just not looking hard enough for said DSDT changes (in source form)?

 

[RehabMan]

Fast forward to current times, everything is listed as HEX code,

What are you referring to?

 

[rs1n]

What are you referring to?

I'm referring to how modifications have become oversimplified into bit flags. Yes, there is online documentation. But the online documentation (e.g. https://clover-wiki.zetam.org/Configuration/ACPI#DSDT), while greatly appreciated, is still lacking in some areas. For example,

FixUSB_1000
Injects USB devices and their properties for USB-1, USB-2 and USB-3. No reason not to use this bit.

Are users simply to take the author's word for it? It would be nice to know what this patch actually does (esp. so that users can learn to troubleshoot their own system).

I am probably in the minority of wanting to know the ins and outs of the DSDT patches, but I find it very educational to see the source changes.

 

[RehabMan]

I'm referring to how modifications have become oversimplified into bit flags. Yes, there is online documentation. But the online documentation (e.g. https://clover-wiki.zetam.org/Configuration/ACPI#DSDT), while greatly appreciated, is still lacking in some areas. For example,

FixUSB_1000
Injects USB devices and their properties for USB-1, USB-2 and USB-3. No reason not to use this bit.

Are users simply to take the author's word for it? It would be nice to know what this patch actually does (esp. so that users can learn to troubleshoot their own system).

I am probably in the minority of wanting to know the ins and outs of the DSDT patches, but I find it very educational to see the source changes.

Clover source code is available: https://sourceforge.net/p/cloverefiboot/code/HEAD/tree/
You can study the source in Clover to find out what it does.

And you can easily see what these options do by setting them in your config.plist, then using F4/F5 in Clover to capture native + patched ACPI. Then you can disassemble them and compare with diff or diffmerge.

Finally, there is no requirement that you use Clover ACPI "Fixes"... as all such fixes can be accomplished by patching ACPI the old way.

 

[rs1n]

Clover source code is available: https://sourceforge.net/p/cloverefiboot/code/HEAD/tree/
You can study the source in Clover to find out what it does.

And you can easily see what these options do by setting them in your config.plist, then using F4/F5 in Clover to capture native + patched ACPI. Then you can disassemble them and compare with diff or diffmerge.

Finally, there is no requirement that you use Clover ACPI "Fixes"... as all such fixes can be accomplished by patching ACPI the old way.

Yes, I understood that much, and have been doing that for a while. It's how I have been studying the DSDT fixes. But I will consider looking at the source (do not know why I did not think of that before). It just seems like such a roundabout way to do it, and extremely tedious since there are so many patches. Back it the day, there was really only the "old" way but everything was posted as source code (albeit not in any organized fashion due to all the competing forums on hackintoshing). I know this is not an important feature, but it would be awesome to be able to see the source changes (say in Clover Configurator) spelling out the exact changes, say, when a user hovers over a checkbox or dropdown option. In the meantime I will consider looking at the clover's source.

 

[RehabMan]

Yes, I understood that much, and have been doing that for a while. It's how I have been studying the DSDT fixes. But I will consider looking at the source (do not know why I did not think of that before). It just seems like such a roundabout way to do it, and extremely tedious since there are so many patches. Back it the day, there was really only the "old" way but everything was posted as source code (albeit not in any organized fashion due to all the competing forums on hackintoshing). I know this is not an important feature, but it would be awesome to be able to see the source changes (say in Clover Configurator) spelling out the exact changes, say, when a user hovers over a checkbox or dropdown option. In the meantime I will consider looking at the clover's source.

Believe me, the Clover hotpatch way is much better than the old way... (if used correctly).
Note... I would not recommend Clover Configurator. Learn to edit your plist with a plist editor such as Xcode or PlistEdit Pro.

 

[arehep]

https://www.tonymacx86.com/threads/why-are-patches-not-listed-as-source.221850

Believe me, the Clover hotpatch way is much better than the old way... (if used correctly).
Note... I would not recommend Clover Configurator. Learn to edit your plist with a plist editor such as Xcode or PlistEdit Pro.

I only had problem using Clover Configurator when I was on a X79 hack similar to Shilohh´s Golden Build that apparently needed some special code in config.plist. On all my other systems I´ve never had problems using Clover Configurator.
What´s the problem ?

 

[rs1n]

Believe me, the Clover hotpatch way is much better than the old way... (if used correctly).
Note... I would not recommend Clover Configurator. Learn to edit your plist with a plist editor such as Xcode or PlistEdit Pro.

Don't get me wrong; I definitely love how hotpatching is executed. It has considerably sped up the testing process when one can simply "toggle a few switches," if you will, and be able to test out the changes rather than decompiling, recompiling ASL code. The issue for me is there is a seemingly steep tradeoff between ease of use and what one can learn in the process. Even if a patch is completely unrelated to my setup, I still find it interesting to lear about it. As for Clover Configurator, I am neutral. Is there a significant benefit in using one over the other?

 

[VioletDragon]

Believe me, the Clover hotpatch way is much better than the old way... (if used correctly).
Note... I would not recommend Clover Configurator. Learn to edit your plist with a plist editor such as Xcode or PlistEdit Pro.

After doing Hotpatch on my Z77-DS3H desktop it runs so much Smoother. Just patched my friends Z77X-UD5H also i find that Clover Hotpatch is more efficient than DSDTs.

 

[Techyrod82]

After doing Hotpatch on my Z77-DS3H desktop it runs so much Smoother. Just patched my friends Z77X-UD5H also i find that Clover Hotpatch is more efficient than DSDTs.

Agreed, z77-UD5h Running smooth as butter appreciate your knowledge and help