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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 23 2000 - 21:00:20 EST