Re: RFC: WMI Enhancements

[Andy Lutomirski]

On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 5:51 PM,  <Mario.Limonciello@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Darren Hart [mailto:dvhart@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Friday, May 5, 2017 6:45 PM
>> To: Limonciello, Mario <Mario_Limonciello@xxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx; rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
>> len.brown@xxxxxxxxx; corentin.chary@xxxxxxxxx; luto@xxxxxxxxxx;
>> andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; platform-
>> driver-x86@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: RFC: WMI Enhancements


> I meant that to say that at least for now Andy's wmi-mof driver should still be merged.
> If something is going to build on top of this to do WBEM tools, they'll need that MOF
> data once someone figures out how to nicely deconstruct it.
>

The thing I don't like about my own driver is that, as a WMI device
driver, it can be loaded before the rest of the bus finishes probing.
So user programs that are notified asynchronously that the wmi-mof
driver is loaded and try to use future functionality (ioctl to issue a
MOF-based method call?) might end up doing so before the rest of the
bus is probed.

This could be addressed by always exposing the wmi-mof device last
(sort of -- it can be a module) or perhaps by moving MOF functionality
to the core driver.  Or maybe it's not really a problem.

Also, isn't there a way to ask Microsoft to document this?  Are you
supposed to "ask a question" on this forum, perhaps:

https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg134029.aspx

I'm guessing the Samba team knows how to do this, too.