From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Renninger Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] ACPI BIOS Guideline for Linux Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 15:18:24 +0200 Message-ID: <200808311518.25421.trenn@suse.de> References: <200807241732.23412.trenn@suse.de> <200808291729.53628.trenn@suse.de> <20080830124713.GA5910@srcf.ucam.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from ns1.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:45281 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752689AbYHaROM (ORCPT ); Sun, 31 Aug 2008 13:14:12 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080830124713.GA5910@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 Saturday 30 August 2008 02:47:13 pm Matthew Garrett wrote: > 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, Autoloading does not work yet? It is working fine with ordinary ACPI devices providing a HID. > as long as they're willing to document their > implementation. I'll point that out, something like: If you really have to use WMI for Windows compatibility reason, make sure the important parts (is there already something to mention? Against what is the driver loaded -> autoloading?) are documented well. Thomas