On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 10:18:17AM +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 09:32 +0400, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
> > >> [*] Does someone have an alternative for
> > >> /proc/acpi/battery/BAT1/{state,info}?
> > I'm working on it. Should have proto by the end of week.
>
> If you are u
Richard Hughes wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 09:32 +0400, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
[*] Does someone have an alternative for
/proc/acpi/battery/BAT1/{state,info}?
>> I'm working on it. Should have proto by the end of week.
>
> If you are using the power_supply class (i hope you are ;-)
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 09:32 +0400, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
> >> [*] Does someone have an alternative for
> >> /proc/acpi/battery/BAT1/{state,info}?
> I'm working on it. Should have proto by the end of week.
If you are using the power_supply class (i hope you are ;-) then a HAL
from freedesktop
>> [*] Does someone have an alternative for
>> /proc/acpi/battery/BAT1/{state,info}?
I'm working on it. Should have proto by the end of week.
Regards,
Alex
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Jul 9 2007 17:45, Alan Cox wrote:
This patch contains the scheduled removal of the ACPI procfs interface.
What part of "we do not gratuitously break user space interfaces" is so
hard for people to understand.
Generally I am with you on that, but if everyone keeps on u
Hi,
I really appreciate your help.
The ACPI sysfs conversion work is still in progress.
We'll update the ACPI_PROCFS removal plan soon.
Sorry to make you confused.
Thanks,
Rui
On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 22:57 +0800, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> This patch contains the scheduled removal of the ACPI procfs
>
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 20:46:20 +0200 (CEST)
Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jul 9 2007 17:45, Alan Cox wrote:
> >
> >> This patch contains the scheduled removal of the ACPI procfs interface.
> >
> >What part of "we do not gratuitously break user space interfaces" is so
> >hard for p
On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 08:46:20PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> Generally I am with you on that, but if everyone keeps on using /proc --
> and I do[*] -- we will never get rid of it.
>
>
> [*] Does someone have an alternative for /proc/acpi/battery/BAT1/{state,info}?
The battery class work wi
On Jul 9 2007 17:45, Alan Cox wrote:
>
>> This patch contains the scheduled removal of the ACPI procfs interface.
>
>What part of "we do not gratuitously break user space interfaces" is so
>hard for people to understand.
Generally I am with you on that, but if everyone keeps on using /proc --
and
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 16:57:56 +0200
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This patch contains the scheduled removal of the ACPI procfs interface.
NAK
What part of "we do not gratuitously break user space interfaces" is so
hard for people to understand.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the
On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 04:57:56PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> This patch contains the scheduled removal of the ACPI procfs interface.
This was only flagged deprecated in January. Userspace hasn't really
caught up, so I think removing it now is premature. Given the quantity
of software that's be
This patch contains the scheduled removal of the ACPI procfs interface.
Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt |8 -
drivers/acpi/Kconfig | 13 -
drivers/acpi/debug.c | 143
12 matches
Mail list logo
