Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:48:13 -0800 From: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> To: =?UTF-8?B?QXJ0dXIgQmHEhw==?= <artur@ebasoft.com.pl> Cc: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Need info about ACPI - implementing, done .... Message-ID: <47A11ACD.8000409@root.org> In-Reply-To: <47A073F1.2020701@ebasoft.com.pl> References: <200801261837.26708.artur@ebasoft.com.pl> <1201387323.7237.2.camel@localhost> <200801280411.29358.artur@ebasoft.com.pl> <479F7B2A.2070900@root.org> <47A073F1.2020701@ebasoft.com.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Artur Bać wrote: > Nate Lawson pisze: >> Artur Bać wrote: >>> There is no ACPI , there is Microsoft invention combo of ACPI+WMI+MOF >>> so we call acpi method which calls wmi method with code located in >>> bios or embbeded as MOF data into acpi ... >> >> Yeah, it would be better to implement a generic WMI driver and then >> call it from your wireless switch driver. Not all laptops will >> support this method of calling into WMI via ACPI since it's not a >> standard. >> > > After reading ... > http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/3000/PX03020.pdf > > I'm frustrated with the knowlege that Hi was able/he tryed to make my > privte hardware, laptop making useles in areas where it suits me best. > > This article shows why there is a mix of WMI+ACPI in my laptop, and why > we are unable to use only ACPI to take the best from it. > > He is realy a big sucker. > This is a bit off-topic. However, I think the combination of an over-complicated spec and the secrecy/anonymity of OEMs is the real enabler of acpi problems. You do know that some small shop in Taiwan actually defined and built your BIOS, not Phoenix or AMI, right? -- Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?47A11ACD.8000409>