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.
-
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
