From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: Kernel Version specific vendor override possibilities needed - Revert and provide osi=linux or provide a replacement Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 14:55:27 +0000 Message-ID: <20080221145527.GA8768@srcf.ucam.org> References: <1203471860.3358.177.camel@linux-2bdv.site> <20080220173248.GA22709@srcf.ucam.org> <20080220182339.GC17648@khazad-dum.debian.net> <20080220184954.GB23679@srcf.ucam.org> <20080221031324.GB6344@khazad-dum.debian.net> <20080221091532.GA3091@srcf.ucam.org> <20080221135132.GE14614@mit.edu> <20080221143052.GA8389@srcf.ucam.org> <47BD8F41.6000801@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([78.32.9.130]:56133 "EHLO vavatch.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752209AbYBUOzq (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Feb 2008 09:55:46 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <47BD8F41.6000801@gmail.com> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Alexey Starikovskiy Cc: Theodore Tso , Henrique de Moraes Holschuh , Thomas Renninger , Len Brown , linux-acpi 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. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org