lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Apr]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: Let init know user wants to shutdown
From
Date
"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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:26    [W:0.204 / U:0.356 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site