On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 04:21:17PM -0500, Mario Limonciello wrote:The problems were exposed on newer XPS laptops because those platforms were not tested during platform development. There really isn't a scalable way to represent whether a platform was or wasn't tested during development. In a lot of situation things just work. I would like to do the right thing for the users with what information and resources are available right now to put them in a better state. An aggressive approach of not taking patches to cover a broken interface won't fix the problem of not testing machines already in the market, it will just put end users of the kernel module at a disadvantage.
The outliers of Inspiron and XPS don't seem to follow the interface asIf we're using a different interface to Windows then we're still doing
explicitly. It is not broken on Windows. I don't have an
understanding why it's not, but conjecture that it's a different
interface being used on these that I don't have information on yet.
it wrong. I'll take patches that port us to the interface that's
actually being used, but I won't take patches that just try to cover up
a broken interface that the vendor doesn't test.
The problem is this isn't something that can be quantified to match all different Dell laptops. Specifications, ODMS, IBVs, and requirements change over time on different laptops so this kernel module is really just a line of best fit. You can be sure the matching driver and tool on the windows side will rev and collect special case scenarios as laptops come out. If you want to continue to best represent things going forward do this:You would be better to only match on Latitude and Vostro and anythingIf Windows uses this interface on Latitude and Vostro then I'll do that,
else that people want to opt in via a paramater than to remove the
interface entirely IMO.
but otherwise no.