Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 01:46:34 +0900 From: Mitsuru IWASAKI <iwasaki@jp.FreeBSD.org> To: takawata@shidahara1.planet.sci.kobe-u.ac.jp Cc: iwasaki@jp.FreeBSD.org, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: CFR: Generalized power-management interface Message-ID: <20010114014634Y.iwasaki@jp.FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <200101131525.AAA05193@shidahara1.planet.sci.kobe-u.ac.jp> References: <20010113231549X.iwasaki@jp.FreeBSD.org> <200101131525.AAA05193@shidahara1.planet.sci.kobe-u.ac.jp>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >We don't know which power management system is enabled on the actual > >system, so it's impossible. We need one mandatory device for PM to be > >generalized. I think the opposite way is more reasonable. > > Why? Is it bad to check whether the device is available or not in rc? Ah, you mean we support the same ioctl interface directly in both apm and acpi for power management without passthru requests via generalized device, right? If ioctl is only the matter, I thinkg yes. But having own device file is still advantages when we start considering other cdevsw stuff such as open/close/read/write/poll/etc. I think the way you suggested may prevent generalized device interface improving and make existing-code to be more complicated. Thanks To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010114014634Y.iwasaki>