Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 17:19:21 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 17:19:21 -0500 Received: from dell-paw-3.cambridge.redhat.com ([195.224.55.237]:46329 "EHLO passion.cambridge.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 17:19:20 -0500 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 13/07/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 From: David Woodhouse X-Accept-Language: en_GB In-Reply-To: References: To: "Grover, Andrew" Cc: Pavel Machek , Alan Cox , benh@kernel.crashing.org, Alan Cox , Linus Torvalds , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: swsusp: don't eat ide disks Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 22:25:53 +0000 Message-ID: <3205.1036707953@passion.cambridge.redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 977 Lines: 28 andrew.grover@intel.com said: > Yes, ACPI can and should use standard kernel interfaces when they are > available. I'd go further than that. Where it's blatantly obvious that a standard kernel interface is going to be required for some functionality for which ACPI is the first implementation, that generic interface should have been implemented from the start. > The interfaces you're talking about don't exist yet, but > could be added. Actually I do have boxes on which I "echo 1 > /proc/sys/pm/suspend" to make them sleep. Pavel's right though -- that's not a particularly wonderful interface either. Using sys_reboot() makes some sense to me. But stuff like battery info in /proc/acpi just has no excuse. -- dwmw2 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/