Re: [ANNOUNCE] ACPI BIOS Guideline for Linux

[Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>]

On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 03:18:24PM +0200, Thomas Renninger wrote:
> On Saturday 30 August 2008 02:47:13 pm Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > 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.

That's an implementation detail. We shouldn't be making recommendations 
to vendors based on Linux shortcomings.

> > 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.

There's no valid reason to suggest that vendors use an entirely custom 
solution over using WMI. In some ways, reverse engineering is easier - 
we can see all the entry points. But yes, vendors who want to support 
Linux should document their firmware interfaces.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org