From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Ionescu Subject: Re: [RFC] cpufreqtools Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 13:07:05 +0300 Sender: cpufreq-bounces@www.linux.org.uk Message-ID: References: <20041021172227.GA24663@dominikbrodowski.de> <20041022143927.GE22405@poupinou.org> <20041022145738.GA2136@dominikbrodowski.de> <20041022172109.GF22405@poupinou.org> <1098635425.4442.1.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: cpufreq-bounces+glkc-cpufreq=gmane.org@www.linux.org.uk Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: cpufreq@www.linux.org.uk Hi Jeremy, I think too that dbus is the way to go. If there is not any big issue with dbus, we should use it for uniformity. Why invent a new protocol for this if not really necessary ? Consistent UI/policy tools is a nice thing to have. On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 18:30:25 +0200, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > On Fri, 2004-10-22 at 19:21 +0200, Bruno Ducrot wrote: >> I do like Jeremy's idea to wrap all sysfs stuff in one deamon, then all >> clients (via his library) will communicate with this daemon in order to >> set different policies. So all you care is to secure this daemon, not >> random setuid programs that others may wrote. > > Yep, that was the intent. Though I've been thinking of changing it to use > dbus rather than its own protocol. If we can define a dbus protocol > everyone is happy with, then we can have other implementations, while > having consistent UI/policy tools. > > J