On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 5:51 PM, <Mario.Limonciello@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Darren Hart [mailto:dvhart@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] >> Sent: Friday, May 5, 2017 6:45 PM >> To: Limonciello, Mario <Mario_Limonciello@xxxxxxxx> >> Cc: pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx; rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; >> len.brown@xxxxxxxxx; corentin.chary@xxxxxxxxx; luto@xxxxxxxxxx; >> andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; platform- >> driver-x86@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> Subject: Re: RFC: WMI Enhancements > I meant that to say that at least for now Andy's wmi-mof driver should still be merged. > If something is going to build on top of this to do WBEM tools, they'll need that MOF > data once someone figures out how to nicely deconstruct it. > The thing I don't like about my own driver is that, as a WMI device driver, it can be loaded before the rest of the bus finishes probing. So user programs that are notified asynchronously that the wmi-mof driver is loaded and try to use future functionality (ioctl to issue a MOF-based method call?) might end up doing so before the rest of the bus is probed. This could be addressed by always exposing the wmi-mof device last (sort of -- it can be a module) or perhaps by moving MOF functionality to the core driver. Or maybe it's not really a problem. Also, isn't there a way to ask Microsoft to document this? Are you supposed to "ask a question" on this forum, perhaps: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg134029.aspx I'm guessing the Samba team knows how to do this, too.
