From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/6] [-mm]: ACPI: duplicate ACPI procfs functions in sysfs Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 20:51:36 +0100 Message-ID: <20070125195136.GE23774@elf.ucw.cz> References: <1168083306.5619.34.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200701242128.14047.lenb@kernel.org> <20070125120813.GD23343@elf.ucw.cz> <200701250515.57979.david-b@pacbell.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200701250515.57979.david-b@pacbell.net> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org To: David Brownell Cc: linux-pm@lists.osdl.org, Matthew Garrett , linux-pm@osdl.org, "linux-acpi@vger" List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Hi! > > > > > This patch set is against acpi-test sysfs branch which already converts > > > > > ACPI to follow driver model. Now the ACPI procfs functions are > > > > > duplicated in sysfs step by step. And I want the ACPI interface in sysfs > > > > > works exactly the same way as in procfs. > > > > > > > > No, you can't port same broken interface into sysfs. Some /proc > > > > interfaces are horrible, and we do not want to create _exactly same_ > > > > horrible interfaces in /sys. > > > > > > Please be specific. > > > > /proc/acpi/alarm is horrible mess, as was detailed in another email > > ditto /proc/acpi/wakeup, and all those empty /proc/acpi directories Agreed, /proc/acpi/wakeup is unusable/strange/mess, too. I don't get that many empty /proc/acpi directories, but I surely hope I'll not see them in /sys. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html