>> > Will sony_acpi ever make it to the mainline? Its very useful for new
>> Vaio
>> > models.
>
> Nope, not as it is. Useful != supportable.
>
> 1. It must not create any files under /proc/acpi
> This is creating a machine-specific API, which
> is exactly what we don't want Nobody can maintain
> 50 machine specific APIs.
>
> These objects must appear generic and under sysfs
> as if acpi were not involved in providing them.
>
> 2. its source code shall not live in drivers/acpi
> it is not part of the ACPI implementation after all --
> it is a platform specific driver.
In this case, would a patch ripping off asus_acpi, ibm_acpi and
toshiba_acpi from the kernel be accepted ?
I don't really care much about sony_acpi (since I'm not maintaining it
anymore, even if I still answer support requests about it), but this is
just silly. This has been going on for more than one and a half year now.
Meanwhile (at least from what I've seen), the ACPI subsystem still doesn't
provide this "generic" API which platform specific driver need to
implement. drivers/acpi/{hotkey.c,video.c} are just rudimentary, and there
is no indication that this is going forward:
In March 2005 you (Len) said:
> The goal is to DELETE ibm, toshiba, and asus drivers -- or at least the
> duplicated functions in them.
>
> platform specific drivers make it harder, not easier, to support more
> hardware -- there are a zillion vendors out there, implementing special
> drivers for each of them is a strategy of last resort.
and
> I'd like to keep this driver out-of-tree
> until we prove that we can't enhance the
> generic code to handle this hardware
> without the addition of a new driver.
How long is this going to take ?
Stelian.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
