On Thursday 28 August 2008 14:22:29 Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 02:16:55PM +0200, Thomas Renninger wrote:
> > On Thursday 28 August 2008 12:56:16 Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > IMO WMI should not exist.
> > A lot laptop BIOSes do not use it at all, unfortunately it seems to get
> > more common again.
> > What advantage do you get on Linux using WMI?
>
> Little. But what advantage do we get in the same functionality being
> implemented in an entirely custom way? Even less.
It is all about documentation, right.
WMI is complicating things by one needless and complicated layer.
> > For example HP is using WMI to export a WLAN (or bluetooth?) button on
> > some machines.
> > They should not do that, right?
>
> The HP wlan button is a hardware event. There's no need for it to be
> sent via the keyboard controller. Some of the other keys would be easier
> to deal with if they were sent via the keyboard controller, yes, but
> that's not the full set of what the WMI functionality gives us. How do
> you want kill switches to be controlled? I'd be happier with it being
> done through WMI (like HP) than via Dell's bizarro SMI interface.
>
> > AFAIK most vendors tend to send an ordinary key event again for most
> > extra buttons. Is this the way to go for the future? This probably
> > should also be mentioned then.
>
> Some vendors do, and I agree that it's preferable.
Feel free to send text snippets, e.g. about the preferable way of key events.
Best a diff against the .tex file, but I can do the work and integrate it, np.
Thanks,
Thomas
--
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
