From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: WMI vs Linux Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 23:17:26 +0100 Message-ID: <20070328221726.GA14968@srcf.ucam.org> References: <200703281544.41842.lenb@kernel.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([217.147.92.49]:60967 "EHLO vavatch.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933862AbXC1WRn (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Mar 2007 18:17:43 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200703281544.41842.lenb@kernel.org> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Len Brown Cc: jamey.hicks@hp.com, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 03:44:41PM -0400, Len Brown wrote: > I was wondering if you could tell me about it. > I was just about to write a little driver that binds to PNP0C14 and tells the > user that they should not buy machines with WMI extensions and run Linux on them -- > but maybe an exception to that rule already exists? It would be helpful to export as much WMI information as possible - we can supply information to utilise it via HAL, which would at least provide support for doing things like poking the wireless and bluetooth hardware on the old HP tablets. I agree that WMI functionality is generally a bad sign, but where we can drive it I think we probably should be. > ps. while you're at it, what is the WACF005 Wacom Digitizer device also in the patch -- > I don't see that upstream either. It's handled by 8250_pnp.c now. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org