On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 08:11:14PM +0200, Martin-�ric Racine wrote: > On Tue, 11 Jan 2005, Sven Luther wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 01:21:02PM +0100, Frederic Peters wrote: > > > Martin-�ric Racine wrote: > > > > > > > > Sjoerd proposed to replace acme_error by g_warning; it *is* trivial. > > > > > Patch attached. > > > > > > > > This patch fails as-is, because another patch removes that code > > > > fragment. > > > > > > Yes, it was done a bit too fast, Sjoerd pointed this in a later mail > > > and announced he has a correct patch in his local package. > > > > So let's solve this. So, as i understand the current prefered fix is : > > > > 1) if there is no /proc/device-tree/aliases/via-pmu -> we issue a warning. > > No. WThis means that we are on hardware not offering PMU so we issue > nothing and we disable FB_LEVEL features completely.
Yes, that is what i meant. Silly me. > > 2) if the /dev/pmu device is not existent and/or not writteable > > -> we issue a warning, and don't use the feature > > If /proc/device-tree/aliases/via-pmu is not user-writable, we issue a > warning to syslog to remind the user that appropriate permissions are > needed to access the feature. /dev/pmu you mean. > > 3) if the /dev/pmu is existent and writteable -> we use the feature > > Correct. > > > By default, the /dev/pmu is not writteable, so the feature is disabled, so > > we > > need to add a line in Debian.Readme explaining this, and also the relative > > unsecurity of this approach. > > Agreed. Ok, this looks sensible, let's do it. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
