From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Renninger Subject: Re: Do not return true to all kind of Windows OSI calls Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 18:24:05 +0200 Message-ID: <200808031824.06670.trenn@suse.de> References: <1217632817.4610.6.camel@hidalgo> <200808031531.54725.trenn@suse.de> <20080803141231.GA14272@srcf.ucam.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from ns.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:45806 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756421AbYHCQWh (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Aug 2008 12:22:37 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080803141231.GA14272@srcf.ucam.org> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Matthew Garrett Cc: corsac@debian.org, ak@linux.intel.com, rui.zhang@intel.com, nokos@gmx.net, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, hmh@debian.org On Sunday 03 August 2008 04:12:31 pm Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Sun, Aug 03, 2008 at 03:31:53PM +0200, Thomas Renninger wrote: > > This is even worse, because that means that Lenovo and everyone > > else who has to add Windows hotfixes to their BIOS and potentially > > have to break their Linux supported OS by that cannot guarantee > > their customers full Linux support (without providing a separate > > Linux BIOS). > > That's fine. Where we diverge from the Windows behaviour we already have > a bug. Yes. I take above statement back. This Windows behaviour very much de-escalates the situation. If Windows sticks to this then there is no urgent need for OSI(notWindows) or OSI(Linux). Thanks for pointing this out. Thomas