Il 21/01/2014 12:02, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto: > > I think it is safe to assume that no OSPM will do those crazy things > > with OS-defined _OSI strings (it's quite plausible that they do it with > > feature _OSI strings). > > > > First, because IMHO it is completely insane. > > Insane, yes. > This is however what windows does and this is what microsoft document > explicitly says.
Yeah, that's what I would like a source for. _How_ does Microsoft tweak its ACPI implementation based on the set of feature bits that are _OSI-probed? But even that is not very important because... > We restrict ourselves to a very small subset of the spec > that seems to work well everywhere, and > so far OSPMs seem to assume that's what no _OSI means. ... do we have reason to believe that adding _OSI("Darwin") will make some OSPM *restrict* their features further? I don't think so. Besides being doubly insane to me, it contradicts the spec. The spec says that _OSI probes can be used by the OSPM to provide *more* features, not less. It says "OSPM can choose to expose new functionality" based on the _OSI argument string. So only Mac OS X has to be tested if we probe _OSI("Darwin"). Paolo