Re: can't seem to ignore a battery

[Paul Fox <pgf@laptop.org>]

kay wrote:
 > On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 05:54, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote:
 > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 09:44:34PM -0500, Paul Fox wrote:
 > >> kay wrote:
 > >>  > On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 17:50, David Zeuthen <david@fubar.dk> wrote:
 > >>  > > On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 11:06 -0500, Paul Fox wrote:
 > >>  > >> i'm hoping someone can explain why my rule containing an
 > >>  > >> "ignore_device" option for a power_supply device seems to be
 > >>  > >> ignored. ??some sample output from udevadm test, and udevadm are
 > >>  > >> available here: ??http://pastie.org/695548
 > >>  > >
 > >>  > > Like last_rule (which we covered a few weeks ago), things like
 > >>  > > ignore_device probably needs to go (although I haven't thought much
 > >>  > > about it and I don't know why it was added - probably a broken driver I
 > >>  > > guess). Trying to hide or ignore events at the udev level is just wrong
 > >>  > > on a number of levels.
 > >>  >
 > >>  > Yeah, that's the same issue as last_rule. It's really wrong to show
 > >>  > stuff in sysfs which gets enumerated, but to try to suppress such
 > >>  > events at device creation time.
 > >>
 > >> can someone point me at a thread that explains why being able to
 > >> configure one's system to ignore a device is so plainly wrong?
 > >> i'm clearly missing something.
 > >
 > > Why is your kernel exporting something that you are trying to ignore?
 > > Just fix your kernel driver and it should be no problem, right?
 > 
 > Exactly, we decided not to do this "abstraction game" anymore, and
 > force to fix the kernel where needed, or fix users to cope with such
 > things. As sysfs is the primary interface for many device-related
 > things, including many libudev users, sysfs enumeration will return
 > all devices in all cases, therefore there is not much point in
 > suppressing RUN instructions and hoping that this will hide stuff from
 > users.
 > 
 > "ignore_device" did only suppress the device node creation and RUN
 > instructions, libudev-events are always sent out unconditionally,
 > regardless of any rules. It's all from a time as udev was only

thank you.  i guess this explains the behavior i'm seeing.  i assumed
that ignore_device would cause it to be truly ignored.

clearly we don't _want_ to have two battery drivers for the same
battery.  but neither driver by itself currently fills all of our
current needs, and, given our development schedule, building both
and having the UI layers ignore one of them seemed like the most
expedient, temporary, solution.  we'll have to look at this a
different way.

thanks,
paul

 > managing /dev files, and not all sorts of hotplug setups, today
 > "ignore_device" is just inconsistent, should not be used, and should
 > just be removed.
 > 
 > Thanks,
 > Kay

=---------------------
 paul fox, pgf@laptop.org