> 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. I hear you... If you want my opinion - in this case it wasn't just a chip manufacturer that didn't understand or care about the ecosystem, it was also OEMs that didn't give a shit and Intel that failed to grasp the problem and counteract. But there's no point in arguing about it, it is how it is and we have to deal with the fallout. What we can do is provide better guidance for inexperienced Chinese manufacturers and lobby Intel so they take more responsibility for their platforms. A single person can't do much, but I do think that a vital open source project like the Linux kernel has some leverage. -- 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
