From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexey Starikovskiy Subject: Re: Kernel Version specific vendor override possibilities needed - Revert and provide osi=linux or provide a replacement Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 18:07:26 +0300 Message-ID: <47BD93AE.7000609@gmail.com> References: <1203471860.3358.177.camel@linux-2bdv.site> <20080220173248.GA22709@srcf.ucam.org> <20080220182339.GC17648@khazad-dum.debian.net> <20080220184954.GB23679@srcf.ucam.org> <20080221031324.GB6344@khazad-dum.debian.net> <20080221091532.GA3091@srcf.ucam.org> <20080221135132.GE14614@mit.edu> <20080221143052.GA8389@srcf.ucam.org> <47BD8F41.6000801@gmail.com> <20080221145527.GA8768@srcf.ucam.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.173]:52181 "EHLO ug-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753816AbYBUPHe (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Feb 2008 10:07:34 -0500 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id z38so1001645ugc.16 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 07:07:31 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20080221145527.GA8768@srcf.ucam.org> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Matthew Garrett Cc: Theodore Tso , Henrique de Moraes Holschuh , Thomas Renninger , Len Brown , linux-acpi Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 05:48:33PM +0300, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote: > > >> How about WMI? >> Do you think that there will be some point in the future, >> when we could claim that our WMI implementation is the >> same as Windows + HW manufacturer private driver? >> > > When vendors require custom drivers, we're going to end up requiring a > custom driver. That's true regardless of how the functionality is > exposed. The solution there is to encourage vendors not to require > custom drivers, not to get them to expose the same functionality in two > different ways. > > It will always be two ways -- Windows way with WMI and other OSes way without it. The choice is there to place this non-Windows custom driver -- in C or in AML. This is their choice, right? If they choose to not create custom driver or have some concerns about complexity of its implementation in C rather than in AML, they should be allowed to choose AML.