lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Feb]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: 2.6: drivers/input/power.c is never built
    From
    Date
    Hi.

    On Sat, 2005-02-19 at 17:53, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
    > Hi Nigel,
    >
    > On Saturday 19 February 2005 01:28, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
    > > Hi.
    > >
    > > On Sat, 2005-02-19 at 13:58, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
    > > > On Friday 18 February 2005 18:31, Pavel Machek wrote:
    > > > > I believe power and suspend keys should definitely go through
    > > > > input. I'm not that sure about battery... Lid is somewhere in
    > > > > between...
    > > > I think we need a generic way of delivering system status changes to
    > > > userspace. Something like acpid but bigger than that, something not
    > > > so heavily oriented on ACPI. I wonder if that kernel connector patch
    > > > should be looked at.
    > >
    > > Absolutely. I've been thinking about this too, but haven't yet found the
    > > time to put it down on paper/email yet.
    > >
    > > I think we need a very generic system by which changes in anything
    > > remotely impacting on power management (kernelspace or userspace,
    > > including ACPI, UPS drivers, keyboard handlers, devices etc) can notify
    > > events to a userspace daemon. This daemon can act in accordance with
    > > user specified policies (changeable on the fly) to implement system
    > > level state changes (suspend to ram/disk, shutdown etc), run time power
    > > management
    >
    > Yep.
    >
    > > (shutdown a USB hub that just signalled the removal of its
    > > last client), logging and so on.
    >
    > This last example - I don't think the daemon should micro-manage, I think
    > USB bus should shutdown the hub automatically without involving userspace.

    Yeah. Sort of contradicted what I said next, didn't I :>

    > > In some cases, it might set policy but
    > > not be actively informed of the details of the application of that
    > > policy (we don't feedback loops with a process leaving C3 to notify that
    > > it's entering C3!).
    > >
    > > This implies, of course, not just a generic way of notifying changes,
    > > but a generic way of implementing policy.
    > >
    > > Sound too ambitious, or am I thinking your thoughts after you?
    >
    > Well, at this moment I only care about delivering the data to userspace,
    > the rest (daemon, policies) is although interesting is out of scope for
    > me.

    I think we need to keep the whole picture in mind though - otherwise we
    might find the design is to inflexible or such like.

    Regards,

    Nigel
    --
    Nigel Cunningham
    Software Engineer, Canberra, Australia
    http://www.cyclades.com

    Ph: +61 (2) 6292 8028 Mob: +61 (417) 100 574

    -
    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 14:10    [W:0.025 / U:0.352 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site