Re: [patch] kernel sysfs events layer

[Andrew Grover]

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 21:48:30 -0700, Tim Hockin <thockin@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> ACPI *has* it's own event system.  It's fine, but it's Yet Another Event
> System.  I'd love to see it use this.  It has mostly the same behaviors,
> except it has a data payload (a string and couple unsigned ints, if I
> recall).  If this API can't handle that, then we have to keep ACPI's
> current event system.  Wouldn't it be nicer to remove code and encourage
> migrating towards standard(ish) APIs?
> 
> Again, other than payload, why NOT use this API for ACPI?

IIRC the two possible future destinations for ACPI events are this,
and the input layer. There are some ACPI events that clearly should go
through this mechanism (e.g. thermal), some the input layer (e.g.
weird laptop extra keys), and maybe some in between? I know David
Bronaugh was looking into this a few weeks ago, maybe he'll pop back
up.

My 2c -- Andy
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/