Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 17 Feb 2000 19:21:12 -0500 | From | Jeff Garzik <> | Subject | Re: Many daemons |
| |
Andy Henroid wrote: > --- Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com> wrote: > > Maybe there should be some more generic interfaces > > (ie a generic interface to user mode to inform > > people about suspend/resume), but I do not think > > there should be complete unification..
> Actually, I think unification of acpid and apmd > would be good. True, with its AML interpreter, > acpid would be a bulk of the binary right now but > I forsee that diminishing and acpid containing the > same amount of functionality as apmd. Unification > would be nice from the user/install perspective.
A strong point in favor of unification is the possibility of additional system management drivers, outside of ACPI and APM. Embedded targets, or platforms with crappy BIOS, might choose to implement power management natively, like the temporary PIIX4 ACPI kernel driver did. I want to implement native power management for this old i430GX, which has an APM status port and APM control port, and a really crappy APM BIOS.
If we are to have generic power management in the kernel, there needs to be some effort to support that in userspace. I think it would lead to code duplication if you have a daemon for every interface... A generic PM daemon should suffice for most tasks, but specialized stuff can either be hooked in as an .so module, compiled into the generic PM daemon, or whatnot... Having a central userspace daemon also allows synchronization of tasks when suspending, resuming, ejecting, etc.
-- Jeff Garzik | Writing software is Building 1024 | more fun than working. MandrakeSoft, Inc. | -Anon
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |