Return-path: Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([93.93.128.6]:52599 "EHLO cavan.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030775Ab2CULPV (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Mar 2012 07:15:21 -0400 Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 11:15:13 +0000 From: Matthew Garrett To: Adrian Chadd Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" , Ben Greear , David Woodhouse , Christian Lamparter , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: Hacking PCI-ids to allow Atheros NIC into Lenovo laptop. Message-ID: <20120321111513.GA26854@srcf.ucam.org> (sfid-20120321_121525_278612_587A9B30) References: <4F5E7031.4000401@candelatech.com> <201203122332.16325.chunkeey@googlemail.com> <4F5E7A81.8090605@candelatech.com> <20120313005744.GA30312@srcf.ucam.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:01:05PM -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote: > On 12 March 2012 18:11, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > >> Exposing it as either an smbios table or in ACPI somewhere would be the > >> two most typical methods for doing this. It's easy to spec an ACPI table > >> for it if you think there'd be any vendor interest. > > > > Better than what we have today, no alternative proposal. > > Is there any current "vendor space" in ACPI that we can write to and > leverage as a kind of example test case? Not really. In theory the ACPI namespace is only usable if you've pushed something through the ACPI process - in practice, grabbing a table name first and asking questions later tends to work fine. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org