andrew.grover@intel.com said:
> IMHO an abstracted interface at this point is overengineering. Maybe
> later it will make sense, though.
Absolutely not. It makes sense now. The abstracted interface is not required
just to combine the interface to APM and ACPI. What John said was
"ACPI != PM". Note that APM != PM either.
We have people who write _real_ code (esp. for embedded systems) to do power
management. None of this UDI-written-in-bytecode style stuff - real C code.
I.e. "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it" :)
_That_ is the first-class citizen here, and _that_ is the thing for which we
require a generic power management API, allowing userspace to set and manage
the power management policies for individual devices, etc., as well as
managing the system-wide sleep macrostates.
It may happen that ACPI and the real native power management code can
happily share an interface. Where there's a conflict, though, the native
implementations should define the interface, and ACPI needs to try to fit
in.
-- dwmw2- 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 23 2001 - 21:00:31 EST