Re: acpi4asus

[Pavel Machek <pavel@suse.cz>]

On Út 16-05-06 23:38:56, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> 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.

I guess that would be acceptable solution.
								Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html