On Fri, 16 Jan 2009, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> On ven, 2009-01-16 at 01:06 -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > > I think it makes sense to tie them to uevents on the appropriate generic
> > > devices. Even if most hardware doesn't generate them, the ability to pop
> > > up a notificati
On ven, 2009-01-16 at 01:06 -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > I think it makes sense to tie them to uevents on the appropriate generic
> > devices. Even if most hardware doesn't generate them, the ability to pop
> > up a notification telling the user that the firmware thinks their sys
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 01:45:19PM -0500, Len Brown wrote:
> > While useful to a techie, it is hard to imagine that these will
> > become useful to a generic Linux GUI some day that is used by
> > regular people.
>
> I think it makes sense to tie them
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 01:45:19PM -0500, Len Brown wrote:
> While useful to a techie, it is hard to imagine that these will
> become useful to a generic Linux GUI some day that is used by
> regular people.
I think it makes sense to tie them to uevents on the appropriate generic
devices. Even if
While useful to a techie, it is hard to imagine that these will
become useful to a generic Linux GUI some day that is used by
regular people.
As thermals on thinkpads are handled by the EC, the question
will become what does the OS (kernel and user) do with these
other than notify... Presumably t
Handle some HKEY events that are actually firmware alarms. For
now, we do the simple thing: log specific messages to the log and let
the thinkpad-specific event pass to userspace.
In the future, these events will be migrated to generic notifications
and subsystems.
These alarms are NOT available
