From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] ACPI BIOS Guideline for Linux Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 13:47:13 +0100 Message-ID: <20080830124713.GA5910@srcf.ucam.org> References: <200807241732.23412.trenn@suse.de> <200808281416.57193.trenn@suse.de> <20080828122227.GA26285@srcf.ucam.org> <200808291729.53628.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]:44553 "EHLO vavatch.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751364AbYH3MrV (ORCPT ); Sat, 30 Aug 2008 08:47:21 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200808291729.53628.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 Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 05:29:52PM +0200, Thomas Renninger wrote: > On Thursday 28 August 2008 14:22:29 Matthew Garrett wrote: > > 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. Not really. It provides approximately no complexity for Linux drivers, and makes it easier for vendors to provide Windows support. WMI has not been the hard bit of the drivers I've written. I don't see any reason to ask vendors not to use it, as long as they're willing to document their implementation. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org