From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <3C893BB9.6040002@cymes.de> Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 23:31:21 +0100 From: Matthias Grimm MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Joseph P. Garcia" Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: pbbuttons, need some help References: <3C852E12.3030300@cymes.de> <20020306090814.15511@mailhost.mipsys.com> <3C87B6C8.9070905@cymes.de> <20020307134140.56d70400.jpgarcia@execpc.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: Joseph P. Garcia wrote: Hi, > The best way to get battery info now is to use to use /proc/pmu/ in newer > (2.4) kernels. My gkrellm-pmu plugin used to use adb directly, then PMUD, > now /proc/pmu/. I had to poke and prod at Paul Mackerras' Batmon to figure > out O'Hare. But /proc/pmu is transparent to what kind of system its on. > Divide and conquer. Nice that another conduit thats system independant > exists. Yes, you are right. Why do something again what's already done. I looked into the kernel source, afterwards into PMUD and then I thought that's the way and other possibilities didn't come into my mind although I knew /proc/pmu. So I will borrow some code from gkrellm-pmu for that task. ;-) > Along those same lines, I have a sugesstion for the gtk client for > pbbuttons. The program should use the X keycodes rather than associate > with the daemon that controls the hardware. This serves two purposes: X > handles any client/server mess, and the GUI will be the system independant > figurehead it should be (IMO). Bastien wrote a similar program that uses > the keycodes, so it could be used on any system with the keys, even an x86. > (hadess.net) I didn't understand excactly what you mean. The GTK client is only a simple stupid program that will do what it's told from the server. It hasn't any own input routines except the message queue where the messages from the server arrive. It doesn't get in contact with any keycodes, neither from X nor from terminal. What do you mean with 'client/server mess'? I don't use the X-protokoll for communication and I don't think it would make much sense. We would hardly benefit from the X-protokoll because the network transparency isn't needed here. We only want to make the handling of our machines more comfortable. Or have I misunderstood you here? > Hope this helps. Discussions will always help :-) Who else would turn me arround 180 degrees in a blind alley ;-) Matthias ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/