Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 16 May 2006 23:38:56 -0400 | From | Bill Davidsen <> | Subject | Re: acpi4asus |
| |
Pavel Machek wrote:
>Hi! > > > >>>I am far from qualified to comment on this, but from a >>>users point of view, is it possible to not have laptop >>>specific code in the kernel? >>>I have had two Linux laptops and with both I had ACPI >>>issues. >>>The vendors of both laptops (Toshiba Tecra S1 and now >>>an Asus W3V) don't seem to be following standards. With >>>both I seem to need to patch ACPI to get various >>>functions of the laptop to work. >>>I would love to see laptop specific functionality >>>definitions exist outside the kernel. >>> >>> >>> >>I don't think that forcing laptop users to have their >>own code outside the kernel is really the best approach >>for either the developers or the users. Most users will >> >> > >No, we don't want that. But we do not want ibm-acpi, toshiba-acpi, >asus-acpi, etc, when they really only differ in string constants used. > >We want userland to tell kernel 'mail led is controlled by AML routine >foo', instead of having gazillion *-acpi modules. > > > > I see no reason why an interface to that couldn't be included in the kernel, with just a small table for each hardware instead of a whole module. Kind of a white list with detail.
-- bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> CTO TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |