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
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
> 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
> : 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
> 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
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
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
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
< 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
> 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
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?
> 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
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
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
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.
15 matches
Mail list logo