On Sat, 02 Aug 2008, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Sat, Aug 02, 2008 at 11:38:33AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > > 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. > > > > Sorry, but I will disagree. > > > > Anything that can help in the future with the vendors that are better at > > Linux support is a good thing. You are right that we will still have to > > deal with the others, but there are such things as vendor-specific windows > > workarounds (they didn't want to change their firmware, or they couldn't, or > > the others didn't care to add the workaround, etc). If that vendor uses the > > "NotWindows" OSI correctly, we would not need to take any special action. > > Allowing vendors to special-case Linux means that we have to have a > special-case path for the minority of vendors who ask for this. It's > added complexity and we don't actually gain anything from it. Correction: special case ALL non-windows. There's a reason why I said ACPICA should provide OSI(NonWindows). -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- 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
