Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Let init know user wants to shutdown | From | John Fremlin <> | Date | 18 Apr 2001 02:54:00 +0100 |
| |
"Grover, Andrew" <andrew.grover@intel.com> writes:
> [do we want to move this to linux-power?]
I'm happy to as long as I'm cc'd.
[...]
IMHO the pm interface should be split up as following:
(1) Battery status, power status, UPS status polling. It should be possible for lots of processes to do this simultaneously. [That does not prohibit a single process querying the kernel and all the others querying it.]
(2) Funky events happening to the physical machine, like a button being pressed, the case being closed, etc. [Should this include battery low warnings, power status changes? I don't know.]
(3) Sending the machine to sleep, turning it off. It should be possible to do this from userspace ;-)
Am I missing anything? Of course (1) and (2) could be combined into a single daemon.
ATM the area is fraught with incompatibility. There are a ridiculous number of power management systems - one per architecture almost. Each has a different kernel-userspace interface. Every UPS has its own interface too (?) ;-)
> There should be only one PM policy agent on the system.
Why?
As far as I see it, only some people need polling capabilities - i.e. those on battery or UPS. Why should they be subjected to the bloat etc. And those on battery might want multiple policies as Alan pointed out.
[...]
--
http://www.penguinpowered.com/~vii - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |