On Saturday 30 August 2008 02:47:13 pm Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 05:29:52PM +0200, Thomas Renninger wrote:
> > On Thursday 28 August 2008 14:22:29 Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > 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.
>
> Not really. It provides approximately no complexity for Linux drivers,
> and makes it easier for vendors to provide Windows support. WMI has not
> been the hard bit of the drivers I've written. I don't see any reason to
> ask vendors not to use it,
Autoloading does not work yet?
It is working fine with ordinary ACPI devices providing a HID.
> as long as they're willing to document their
> implementation.
I'll point that out, something like:
If you really have to use WMI for Windows compatibility reason, make
sure the important parts (is there already something to mention?
Against what is the driver loaded -> autoloading?) are documented well.
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
