Messages in this thread | | | Subject | RE: Generic battery interface | Date | Fri, 28 Jul 2006 00:05:35 -0400 | From | "Brown, Len" <> |
| |
>On 7/28/06, Brown, Len <len.brown@intel.com> wrote: >> I'm not religious about /dev vs. /sys.
Tho I'm starting to feel like I've touched off some religion in others:-)
>I would greatly prefer a sysfs interface.
Understood.
>Having a clean, textual sysfs API that's easily accessed from shell >has been extremely conductive for the development of the tp_smapi >driver -- users can easily test and script the driver without extra >programming and userspace components. Since tp_smapi is (AFAIK) the >most feature-rich battery driver we now have, this is some to >consider.
> clean
well, one man's "clean" is another man's "dirty", I guess this is subjective.
> textual
good for shell scripts, not clear it is better for C programs that have to open a bunch of files by name.
> sysfs was great for develping tp_smapi
Wonderful, but isn't the key here how simple it is for HAL or X to understand and use the kernel API rather than the developers of the kernel driver that implements the API?
If X were a shell script, I'd say a file per value would clearly be the way to go, but it isn't.
-Len - 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/
| |