On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 08:51:32AM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: > It would be much better if we define feature-specific OSI() strings > that have well defined meanings for each place where Lenovo has to do > something different than What Happens With Windows --- especially for > stuff which is generic, since all laptop manufactuers need to > interoperate with whatever cr*p Windows ship. At the end of the day, > since Intel was originally too lazy to ship an ACPI conformance test > suite, like it or not, Windows *has* become the APCI conformance test > suite, and all laptop manufacturers (at least for today) must bow to > the might and power which is the market share of Microsoft. My concern with this is that until we know where we deviate from the Windows behaviour, we don't know what strings we'd need to provide. And once we *do* know where we deviate, we should fix that deviation rather than provide an identifying string. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx - 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
