Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 26 Oct 2001 00:51:58 +0900 (JST)
From:      Mitsuru IWASAKI <iwasaki@jp.FreeBSD.org>
To:        arch@freebsd.org
Cc:        audit@freebsd.org
Subject:   (was Re: cvs commit: src/sys/modules Makefile src/sys/modules/apm Mak )
Message-ID:  <20011026.005158.71086516.iwasaki@jp.FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <20011025.231348.92585814.iwasaki@jp.FreeBSD.org>
References:  <XFMail.011024104456.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <200110250505.f9P55R739324@harmony.village.org> <20011025.231348.92585814.iwasaki@jp.FreeBSD.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi,

I've just make patches for the recent apm module changes.

http://people.freebsd.org/~iwasaki/apm/apm_module-20011025.diff

The problems I'm tring to solve are;
 - Apm loadable module cannot inform other kernel components whether
   apm will be enabled (e.g. i386/isa/clock.c:startrtclock()'s TCS hack).
   SI_SUB_KLD stuff should be invoked earlier than SI_SUB_CPU.
 - APM and ACPI cannot co-exist together at the same time according to
   ACPI spec.  They should be enabled exclusively by some sort of
   arbitration mechanism.
 - Now that `#ifdef DEV_APM' related code is almost obsolete.  Also
   public apm(4) functions, such as apm_suspend(), cannot be called
   directly, should be called via abstracted interface.

Note that the patches contain exchanging priority of SI_SUB_CPU and
SI_SUB_KLD.  I already checked dependency of all MOD_LOAD code on
cpu_startup() related code (e.g. DELAY) roughly, but I'm not sure if
there is no problem.  I think that module load event code and kernel
linker should not depend on SI_SUB_CPU...

Any comments are welcome.  I'll commit this early in Nov.

Thanks

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-audit" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011026.005158.71086516.iwasaki>