linux-kernel - Re: [ANNOUNCE] ACPI BIOS Guideline for Linux

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20080830124713.GA5910@srcf.ucam.org>
Date:	Sat, 30 Aug 2008 13:47:13 +0100
From:	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
To:	Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de>
Cc:	Carlos Corbacho <carlos@...angeworlds.co.uk>,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] ACPI BIOS Guideline for Linux

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, as long as they're willing to document their 
implementation.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@...f.ucam.org
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/