You're right, this needs to be partitioned more. I still think the thermal_zone capability is a good idea, but the temperature data could be made more useful if it was placed into the 'sensor' namespace. That way, systems with ACPI could have an abstract thermal_zone device in HAL with the capabilities 'thermal_zone' and 'sensor', and systems without ACPI could still expose temperature data for physical devices with the 'sensor' namespace. I've posted v2 of the spec... which moves the temperature data into the 'sensor' namespace so that it can be more generally useful. <a href="http://www.hoodidge.net/development/thermal_zone_v2.html">http://www.hoodidge.net/development/thermal_zone_v2.html </a> Stu Hood <div>On 11/5/06, Richard Hughes <<a href="mailto:hughsient@gmail.com">hughsient@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> On Fri, 2006-11-03 at 15:17 -0500, Stu Hood wrote: > (from Gnome Bugzilla #347406) > > Although data for acpi thermal zones is exposed through /proc/acpi, > and potentially sysfs in the near future, it is not currently being > exposed in HAL. We'd like to rectify that... >         Looking through the issue some more, it became clear that the first step would > >         be to get a spec drawn up for how these new keys would be added to HAL. Here is >         a first draft: > >         <a href="http://www.hoodidge.net/development/thermal_zone_v1.html">http://www.hoodidge.net/development/thermal_zone_v1.html</a> > > >         Its seperate from the sensors namespace that you created Richard, because in >         the context of ACPI, a thermal zone is an abstract device, possibly made up of >         many sensors on many physical devices. Maybe we need to abstract these zones/sensors rather than having a acpi thermal zone type object which I'm guessing isn't very useful in the world of solaris and freebsd. Guys, what do you think? Richard. </blockquote></div>