On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 07:36:57PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Fri, 01 Aug 2008, Len Brown wrote: > > It is better to expose ourselves to the known tested Windows functionality > > -- even if it seems arbitrary, at least it is tested. The !Windows case > > results in running _completely_ untested BIOS code. > > Actually, we should masquerade properly as the latest Windows version > available for that machine, then. AFAIK, Windows does not set ALL the OSI > strings, just one. We ARE running untested code in some BIOSes because of > it. The BIOSes I've tested check _OSI in order of Windows release, which is consistent with Windows returning OSI strings for all previous versions. Do you have any examples that suggest this isn't the case? > Maybe it would be better if every ACPICA-using OS defined a > _OSI(NotWindows), plus the relevant Windows OSI string they want to support, > and Intel would send word that this string is to be used ONLY to disable all > Windows bug workarounds, not to activate or deactivate any specific > functionality? Not all BIOSes would support this, so we'd need to support the Windows workarounds anyway. At that point, there's no real benefit in having multiple codepaths. -- 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
