From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] ACPI BIOS Guideline for Linux Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 11:56:16 +0100 Message-ID: <20080828105616.GA24515@srcf.ucam.org> References: <200807241732.23412.trenn@suse.de> <200808272129.16131.carlos@strangeworlds.co.uk> <200808281141.30178.trenn@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([93.93.128.6]:34096 "EHLO vavatch.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751815AbYH1K4U (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Aug 2008 06:56:20 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200808281141.30178.trenn@suse.de> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Thomas Renninger Cc: Carlos Corbacho , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, Len Brown , Andi Kleen , Linux Kernel Mailing List On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 11:41:28AM +0200, Thomas Renninger wrote: > On Wednesday 27 August 2008 22:29:15 Carlos Corbacho wrote: > > Perhaps it would be more useful to suggest to vendors/ BIOS writers what > > they should use here instead? > > They can use their own devices. > There is a section about if you provide your own device, document it, etc.: > > 2 Vendor specific ACPI implementations > ... > 2. If new devices or functions are introduced, document how to use them. A > short specification or a request for comments (RFC) can form the basis of > a new standard which follows your needs. > > > But yes, it could be pointed out clearer. > I'll look closer at it when I touch it the next time. > Text snippets/suggestions are also appreciated. A documented WMI interface is easier to use than an entirely custom documented interface, and reduces the amount of work the vendor has to do in Windows. To be honest, I think it's the sort of thing we should be encouraging. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org