Re: Kernel Version specific vendor override possibilities needed - Revert and provide osi=linux or provide a replacement

Alexey Starikovskiy
2008-02-21T15:07:34Z

Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 05:48:33PM +0300, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
>
>
>> How about WMI?
>> Do you think that there will be some point in the future,
>> when we could claim that our WMI implementation is the
>> same as Windows + HW manufacturer private driver?
>>
>
> When vendors require custom drivers, we're going to end up requiring a
> custom driver. That's true regardless of how the functionality is
> exposed. The solution there is to encourage vendors not to require
> custom drivers, not to get them to expose the same functionality in two
> different ways.
>
>
It will always be two ways -- Windows way with WMI and other OSes way
without it.
The choice is there to place this non-Windows custom driver -- in C or
in AML.
This is their choice, right? If they choose to not create custom
driver or have some concerns about complexity of its implementation in
C rather than in AML, they should be allowed to choose AML.