Quoting Michael Schmitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > The info logged to /proc/apm is currently logged to /etc/power/apm. > I have > > > > Is this a typo? Why is status information in /etc? > > Because user space pmud can't create /proc/ entries? > > > > no idea what /dev/apm does aside from providing that log info, and I > have > > > no clue what /dev/apm_bios does, either. There should be no major > problems > > > > The /dev device selects true for read() when a power event happens > (such as > > a user suspend request or battery status change) and can be written to > allow > > a user process to initiate a system suspend. > > We use a TCP port on the loopback interface for that. > > > > independent. I just don't see a good reason to change from pmud to > apmd, > > > if that's what you're suggesting. > > > > It's always better, IMHO, to keep Linux userspace as similar as > possible > > Granted, if that doesn't place a high burden on the kernel code. I > thought > 'keep it simple, stupid' was the kernel motto? > > > between different architectures. If pmud has features that apmd > doesn't > > have, or vice versa, I would rather merge them than keep them > separate. In > > the process, we might as well work on making the kernel interfaces > similar > > too. That's the whole _point_ of the kernel. > > I beg to differ. The whole point of the kernel is to separate critical > code and architecture dependant things from user space. It's not about > making interfaces as similar as possible. If the hardware is > sufficiently > different, a different kernel interface is OK. That's why no one > implemented a VGA compatibility layer in the kernel for PPC, m68k and a > few other archs. > > It all boils down to: how generic is the apm interface?
Hi, Seems like I missed a good part of the discussion... First reason I wanted apmd marked as x86 only, is because it is useless _now_ on power-pc. We have a PMU, not an APM BIOS (ugh!), we have pmud not apmd. What is the point compiling it for powerpc if it's not working and will probably never ? We have here a big fat hardware difference. A PMU's a PMU, and an APM BIOS's an APM BIOS. I'm now working (with help from Joseph Garcia) on an APM library for PMUD. It hides PMUD from the libapm-using battery applets. I posted last week a first "socket" version that uses the TCP socket on the loopback interface to get its information. And I could compile some programs from the apmd distribution and battstat with it. I'm working right now on 1) Debugging socket version, 2) Implementing a version getting its info from /etc/power/apm (soon to be moved, better tell Stephan I guess), 3) Implement the rest of the functions from the apm library (like sleep and everything...) IMHO, an apm interface in the kernel would be "evil", that's a (simple) userspace job. Cheers /Hadess http://hadess.net
