Hi,
On 14-03-17 11:21, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 3:24 PM, Gregor Riepl <onitake@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I suppose the Windows driver just works everywhere, right?
Not really, no.
AFAIK every vendor builds their own driver using a special configuration
utility from Silead.
All the device-specific data, including panel parameters and calibration
data, is compiled into this driver.
Isn't that just defeating the whole purpose of ACPI (or any other
hardware description)?
Isn't the idea to describe all this in ACPI tables, and that is what the
vendor should be doing rather than compiling in hardcoded things
into drivers?
I just see this as another sign that the ACPI "ecosystem" is not
really working because vendors choose to arbitrarily bypass it like
this.
Is it too hard for them to use ACPI or is ACPI lacking the right
parameters to tweak or what is the real problem?
It is certainly possible to do this in a more sane manner using
ACPI, if I were to guess what the real problem is it is a combination
of time-to-marker + getting what you pay for (pay peanuts ...).
Regards,
Hans
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
