From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932120AbdDMHdv (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Apr 2017 03:33:51 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f65.google.com ([74.125.82.65]:35991 "EHLO mail-wm0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756391AbdDMHdn (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Apr 2017 03:33:43 -0400 Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 09:33:39 +0200 From: Pali =?utf-8?B?Um9ow6Fy?= To: Darren Hart Cc: Rafael Wysocki , Len Brown , Corentin Chary , Mario Limonciello , Andy Lutomirski , Andy Shevchenko , LKML , platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: RFC: WMI Enhancements Message-ID: <20170413073339.GH3090@pali> References: <20170412230854.GA11963@fury> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20170412230854.GA11963@fury> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 12 April 2017 16:08:54 Darren Hart wrote: > In Windows, applications interact with WMI more or less directly. We don't do > this in Linux currently, although it has been discussed in the past [3]. Some > vendors will work around this by performing SMI/SMM, which is inefficient at > best. Exposing WMI methods to userspace would bring parity to WMI for Linux and > Windows. Maybe we should first ask, why linux userspace applications need direct access to WMI? If we look at current WMI linux drivers, basically every one translate WMI interface to some standard linux class driver (with some extensions). This is something which should stay in kernel. E.g. rfkill, backlight, led, input keyboard, ... -- Pali Rohár pali.rohar@gmail.com