Hi. On Sat, 2005-02-19 at 17:53, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > Hi Nigel, > > On Saturday 19 February 2005 01:28, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > > Hi. > > > > On Sat, 2005-02-19 at 13:58, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > On Friday 18 February 2005 18:31, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > I believe power and suspend keys should definitely go through > > > > input. I'm not that sure about battery... Lid is somewhere in > > > > between... > > > I think we need a generic way of delivering system status changes to > > > userspace. Something like acpid but bigger than that, something not > > > so heavily oriented on ACPI. I wonder if that kernel connector patch > > > should be looked at. > > > > Absolutely. I've been thinking about this too, but haven't yet found the > > time to put it down on paper/email yet. > > > > I think we need a very generic system by which changes in anything > > remotely impacting on power management (kernelspace or userspace, > > including ACPI, UPS drivers, keyboard handlers, devices etc) can notify > > events to a userspace daemon. This daemon can act in accordance with > > user specified policies (changeable on the fly) to implement system > > level state changes (suspend to ram/disk, shutdown etc), run time power > > management > > Yep. > > > (shutdown a USB hub that just signalled the removal of its > > last client), logging and so on. > > This last example - I don't think the daemon should micro-manage, I think > USB bus should shutdown the hub automatically without involving userspace.
Yeah. Sort of contradicted what I said next, didn't I :> > > In some cases, it might set policy but > > not be actively informed of the details of the application of that > > policy (we don't feedback loops with a process leaving C3 to notify that > > it's entering C3!). > > > > This implies, of course, not just a generic way of notifying changes, > > but a generic way of implementing policy. > > > > Sound too ambitious, or am I thinking your thoughts after you? > > Well, at this moment I only care about delivering the data to userspace, > the rest (daemon, policies) is although interesting is out of scope for > me. I think we need to keep the whole picture in mind though - otherwise we might find the design is to inflexible or such like. Regards, Nigel -- Nigel Cunningham Software Engineer, Canberra, Australia http://www.cyclades.com Ph: +61 (2) 6292 8028 Mob: +61 (417) 100 574 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
