Todd Poynor wrote:
...
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.12.orig/include/linux/powerop.h 1970-01-01
> 00:00:00.000000000 +0000
> +++ linux-2.6.12/include/linux/powerop.h 2005-08-03
> 01:10:55.000000000 +0000
> @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
> +/*
> + * PowerOP core definitions
> + *
> + * Author: Todd Poynor <[email protected]>
> + *
> + * 2005 (c) MontaVista Software, Inc. This file is licensed under
> + * the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2. This program
> + * is licensed "as is" without any warranty of any kind, whether
> express
> + * or implied.
> + */
> +
> +#ifndef __POWEROP_H__
> +#define __POWEROP_H__
> +
> +#include <linux/kobject.h>
> +#include <asm/powerop.h>
> +
> +struct powerop_point {
> + int param[POWEROP_DRIVER_MAX_PARAMS];
> +};
I'm wondering if anything could be gained by having the whole
struct powerop_point defined in asm/powerop.h, and treat it as an
opaque structure at this level. That way, things other than just
ints could be passed between the policy manager and the backend,
although I guess that breaks the beauty of the simplicity and would
complicate the sys-fs interface, etc. I'm interested to hear your
comments.
Another point is that a policy manager would need to poll the system
and/or get events and then act. Your powerop work here only provides
a (one way) piece of the final action. Any comments regarding a more
general interface?
-Geoff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |