Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 14:00:34 -0800 From: Michael Smith <msmith@freebsd.org> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org, Frode Nordahl <frode@nordahl.net>, Hiten Pandya <hiten@angelica.unixdaemons.com>, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [acpi-jp 1931] Re: acpid implementation? Message-ID: <D6B06ABC-F4F7-11D6-8D49-0050E4660701@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <3DCE168F.33FC0BFE@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sunday, November 10, 2002, at 12:19 AM, Terry Lambert wrote: > Michael Smith wrote: >> On Saturday, November 9, 2002, at 04:12 AM, Terry Lambert wrote: >>> Repeat: #1 is power profiles >> >> I don't see why this requires an 'acpid'. You want a control tool, >> sure, but power policy is not something that needs a daemon. > > The tool has to change the settings based on events, like > unplugging external power from a laptop, resulting in the > display backlighting being dimmed or turned off. Ok, so the basic problem here is that you think that these are discrete events that can be managed or tied together in userspace. The bad news is that they aren't. Policy management is trivial, and you can (and should) do it inside the kernel. The real work lies in implementing the base features and structuring it all in a fashion that will actually work with the hardware that's shipping. None of this requires a daemon. = Mike To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?D6B06ABC-F4F7-11D6-8D49-0050E4660701>