Matthew Garrett wrote:
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.
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?
Regards,
Alex.
-
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
