On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 03:18:24PM +0200, Thomas Renninger wrote: > On Saturday 30 August 2008 02:47:13 pm Matthew Garrett wrote: > > 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. That's an implementation detail. We shouldn't be making recommendations to vendors based on Linux shortcomings. > > 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. There's no valid reason to suggest that vendors use an entirely custom solution over using WMI. In some ways, reverse engineering is easier - we can see all the entry points. But yes, vendors who want to support Linux should document their firmware interfaces. -- 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
