From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Renninger Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] ACPI BIOS Guideline for Linux Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 17:29:52 +0200 Message-ID: <200808291729.53628.trenn@suse.de> References: <200807241732.23412.trenn@suse.de> <200808281416.57193.trenn@suse.de> <20080828122227.GA26285@srcf.ucam.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:54555 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751184AbYH2P34 (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:29:56 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080828122227.GA26285@srcf.ucam.org> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Matthew Garrett Cc: Carlos Corbacho , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, Len Brown , Andi Kleen , Linux Kernel Mailing List On Thursday 28 August 2008 14:22:29 Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 02:16:55PM +0200, Thomas Renninger wrote: > > On Thursday 28 August 2008 12:56:16 Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > 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. > > > > IMO WMI should not exist. > > A lot laptop BIOSes do not use it at all, unfortunately it seems to get > > more common again. > > What advantage do you get on Linux using WMI? > > Little. But what advantage do we get in the same functionality being > implemented in an entirely custom way? Even less. It is all about documentation, right. WMI is complicating things by one needless and complicated layer. > > For example HP is using WMI to export a WLAN (or bluetooth?) button on > > some machines. > > They should not do that, right? > > The HP wlan button is a hardware event. There's no need for it to be > sent via the keyboard controller. Some of the other keys would be easier > to deal with if they were sent via the keyboard controller, yes, but > that's not the full set of what the WMI functionality gives us. How do > you want kill switches to be controlled? I'd be happier with it being > done through WMI (like HP) than via Dell's bizarro SMI interface. > > > AFAIK most vendors tend to send an ordinary key event again for most > > extra buttons. Is this the way to go for the future? This probably > > should also be mentioned then. > > Some vendors do, and I agree that it's preferable. Feel free to send text snippets, e.g. about the preferable way of key events. Best a diff against the .tex file, but I can do the work and integrate it, np. Thanks, Thomas