Ideas for spec for PMU/ACPI, another PATCH

[Richard Hughes]

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 20:03:26 +0100, Sjoerd Simons wrote:
>> I think maybe linux.acpi.procfs_path might be better than
>> linux.procfs_path - in which case shouldn't we have a device object:
>> 
>> linux.power_system = acpi | pmu 
>> 

another patch for your review:

http://www.hughsie.com/write/hal-acpipmu-dot-powersystem.patch

cvs is going to be busy tonight... :-)

>> so that the addon code knows what to query (my way of thinking) or the
>> addon launch code knows which addon to launch (your way)
> 
> Just wondering.. Do we want the code that reads/polls /sys and/or /proc 
> entries as addons (well for entries that don't need special permissions) ? 

I figured keep the code modular and out of hald (for a permissions thing,
i.e. battery_addon could be run as a user *just* capable of
reading/writing to /dev/pmu [SELinux?]...) as some people use hal as
non-root.

> 
> I don't think it's a problem to have one extra addon, but having a general
> guideline to what should become an addon and what should stay in the main code
> (or at least in a more general addon) would be nice :)

Agree. I think discussion now would be worthwhile.

Richard
-- 

http://www.hughsie.com/PUBLIC-KEY


_______________________________________________
hal mailing list
hal at lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/hal