On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 11:41:28AM +0200, Thomas Renninger wrote: > On Wednesday 27 August 2008 22:29:15 Carlos Corbacho wrote: > > Perhaps it would be more useful to suggest to vendors/ BIOS writers what > > they should use here instead? > > They can use their own devices. > There is a section about if you provide your own device, document it, etc.: > > 2 Vendor specific ACPI implementations > ... > 2. If new devices or functions are introduced, document how to use them. A > short specification or a request for comments (RFC) can form the basis of > a new standard which follows your needs. > > > But yes, it could be pointed out clearer. > I'll look closer at it when I touch it the next time. > Text snippets/suggestions are also appreciated. A documented WMI interface is easier to use than an entirely custom documented interface, and reduces the amount of work the vendor has to do in Windows. To be honest, I think it's the sort of thing we should be encouraging. -- 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
