Re: HEADS UP: at_shutdown going away

1999-08-22 Thread Doug Rabson
On Sat, 21 Aug 1999, Mike Smith wrote: > > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mike Smith writes: > > : Seriously though, I'm in the process of replacing a number of the > > : ad-hoc event handler callout lists in the kernel (most notably the > > : at_shutdown and apm* lists) with a generic implemen

Re: HEADS UP: at_shutdown going away

1999-08-21 Thread Warner Losh
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mike Smith writes: : If you're going to do that, take a look at the ACPI spec and implement : at least the base set of power states that it defines, since we are : going to have to live with hardware that behaves like that for some : time to come. Good idea... H

Re: HEADS UP: at_shutdown going away

1999-08-21 Thread Mike Smith
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mike Smith writes: > : APM is only attached to the ISA bus for crufty reasons; I'm going to > > Actually, APM is attached to NEXUS. Why pass it kernel environment > variables when it will likely be modified to grok whatever config > scheme comes from newbus? Be

Re: HEADS UP: at_shutdown going away

1999-08-21 Thread Mike Smith
> : If you need more functionality than DEVICE_SUSPEND and DEVICE_RESUME, > : then add more methods. > > That DEVICE_SUSPEND and DEVICE_RESUME methods are exactly the same > thing as we have right now with the apm code. No need to reinvent the > wheel here. It was on my list of cleanups to do a

Re: HEADS UP: at_shutdown going away

1999-08-21 Thread Mike Smith
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mike Smith writes: > : Seriously though, I'm in the process of replacing a number of the > : ad-hoc event handler callout lists in the kernel (most notably the > : at_shutdown and apm* lists) with a generic implementation. > > Shouldn't the apm stuff use the new

Re: HEADS UP: at_shutdown going away

1999-08-21 Thread Warner Losh
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Garrett Wollman writes: : You missed the point. The bus hierarchy has support designed-in to : pass power-management requests down the device tree. The only : functions which should be registering themselves with APM directly : are: : : 1) Old device drivers

Re: HEADS UP: at_shutdown going away

1999-08-21 Thread Warner Losh
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mike Smith writes: : APM is only attached to the ISA bus for crufty reasons; I'm going to Actually, APM is attached to NEXUS. Why pass it kernel environment variables when it will likely be modified to grok whatever config scheme comes from newbus? Warner To U

Re: HEADS UP: at_shutdown going away

1999-08-21 Thread Warner Losh
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mike Smith writes: : > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mike Smith writes: : > : Seriously though, I'm in the process of replacing a number of the : > : ad-hoc event handler callout lists in the kernel (most notably the : > : at_shutdown and apm* lists) with a generi

Re: HEADS UP: at_shutdown going away

1999-08-21 Thread Garrett Wollman
< said: >> [Quoting somebody unidentified, presumably Warner:] >> Shouldn't the apm stuff use the new-bus hooks? I've migraded a couple >> of uses in pccard to using that now that I have newbus node to hang >> them off of... > APM is only attached to the ISA bus for crufty reasons; I'm going t

Re: HEADS UP: at_shutdown going away

1999-08-21 Thread Mike Smith
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mike Smith writes: > : Seriously though, I'm in the process of replacing a number of the > : ad-hoc event handler callout lists in the kernel (most notably the > : at_shutdown and apm* lists) with a generic implementation. > > Shouldn't the apm stuff use the new

Re: HEADS UP: at_shutdown going away

1999-08-20 Thread Warner Losh
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mike Smith writes: : Seriously though, I'm in the process of replacing a number of the : ad-hoc event handler callout lists in the kernel (most notably the : at_shutdown and apm* lists) with a generic implementation. Shouldn't the apm stuff use the new-bus hooks?

Re: HEADS UP: at_shutdown going away

1999-08-19 Thread Mike Smith
> there was external code at TRW but I don't know if it is still in use.. > > We have uses of it here at whistle too. (that's why I wrote it..) > but I guess I can handle them... > > why the change? > If you re-aranged the arguments you'd have EVENTHANDLER_REGISTER == > at_shutdown_pri. It has

Re: HEADS UP: at_shutdown going away

1999-08-19 Thread Julian Elischer
there was external code at TRW but I don't know if it is still in use.. We have uses of it here at whistle too. (that's why I wrote it..) but I guess I can handle them... why the change? If you re-aranged the arguments you'd have EVENTHANDLER_REGISTER == at_shutdown_pri. :-) what are the sele

Re: HEADS UP: at_shutdown going away

1999-08-19 Thread Archie Cobbs
Mike Smith writes: > I will be converting all users of at_shutdown in the kernel to the new > mechanism, but it's of some concern to me that there may be external > code using the old at_shutdown* interfaces that may benefit from a > compatibility interface (which could be done relatively easil

HEADS UP: at_shutdown going away

1999-08-18 Thread Mike Smith
That's right, systems will never shut down. 8) Seriously though, I'm in the process of replacing a number of the ad-hoc event handler callout lists in the kernel (most notably the at_shutdown and apm* lists) with a generic implementation. The upshot of this is that at_shutdown will go away.