Re: Next gen PM interface

[John Fremlin <chief@bandits.org>]

 Patrick Mochel <mochel@transmeta.com> writes:

> > > IMHO the pm interface should be split up as following:
> > 
> > Nobody has disagreed: therefore this separation must be perfect ;-)
> 
> I once heard that patience is a virtue. :)
> 
> > >         (1) Battery status, power status, UPS status polling. It
> > >         should be possible for lots of processes to do this
> > >         simultaneously. [That does not prohibit a single process
> > >         querying the kernel and all the others querying it.]
> > 
> > Solution. Have a bunch of procfs or dev nodes each giving info on a
> > particular power source, like now, but vaguely standardise the output.

[...]

> I can see at least two types of events - (forgive the lack of colorful
> terminology) passive and active. Passive events are simply providing
> status updates, much like the events described above. These are simply so
> some UI can notify the user of things like a low battery or detection of
> an AC adapter. These can be handled in much the same way as described
> above.

No they can't. They only happen once. Battery status exists all the
time.

[...]


-- 

	http://www.penguinpowered.com/~vii