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?
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
On Sat, 21 Aug 1999 12:51:29 -0700, Mike Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
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
: 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 after
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.
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 easily).
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
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 to do
