> >We don't know which power management system is enabled on the actual
> >system, so it's impossible. We need one mandatory device for PM to be
> >generalized. I think the opposite way is more reasonable.
>
> Why? Is it bad to check whether the device is available or not in rc?
Ah, you mean we support the same ioctl interface directly in both apm
and acpi for power management without passthru requests via
generalized device, right? If ioctl is only the matter, I thinkg yes.
But having own device file is still advantages when we start
considering other cdevsw stuff such as open/close/read/write/poll/etc.
I think the way you suggested may prevent generalized device interface
improving and make existing-code to be more complicated.
Thanks
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
