david wrote: > Hey, > > On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 11:06 -0500, Paul Fox wrote: > > i'm hoping someone can explain why my rule containing an > > "ignore_device" option for a power_supply device seems to be > > ignored. some sample output from udevadm test, and udevadm are > > available here: http://pastie.org/695548 > > Like last_rule (which we covered a few weeks ago), things like > ignore_device probably needs to go (although I haven't thought much > about it and I don't know why it was added - probably a broken driver I > guess). from the googling i did while trying to make it work, i'd say that "ignore_device" seems to be used mostly in cases of broken devices that the user wants to pretend don't exist, or to suppress the mounting of certain partitions that are of zero interest. > Trying to hide or ignore events at the udev level is just wrong > on a number of levels. as i said, i don't know much about how udev and its clients are supposed to interact, so i beg some patience: i'd think that quenching unwanted events at the source would be preferable to having to convince every client to ignore them. udev has the ability to do lots of different things with an event. why wouldn't "do absolutely nothing" be an interesting option? (my case seems like a perfect example: while it might be preferable to ignore the extra battery at each client, not all clients currently have that capability.) paul > > > (it may be that i simply have a gross misunderstanding about > > how udev and its clients interact -- this is as deep as i've > > ever delved here.) > > > > background: this is on the OLPC XO-1.5 laptop. we have a legacy > > battery driver that we need to keep running for a while, a) because > > it provides some data that our power analysis scripts rely on, > > and b) because we don't yet trust the DSDT code that drives the > > ACPI driver. > > > > because of the duplicate battery issue (see question #1 of the > > g-p-m FAQ) i'd like hal and devkit to simply ignore the legacy > > driver. i can easily fix hal with an fdi snippet, but haven't > > figured out how to do the same with devkit-power. i assumed > > using a udev "ignore_device" option would take care of it, but > > that's where i'm having trouble. > > You probably want a feature in DeviceKit-power so you can set the udev > property DKP_PRESENTATION_HIDE to 1 so the daemon can convey to users > (such as gnome-power-manager) that a given device should be ignored for > presentation and/or policy. > > We have similar things in DeviceKit-disks (such as > DKD_PRESENTATION_HIDE) for this - see the DeviceKit-disks man page for > details. Talk to Richard (Cc'ed) about such a feature? > > Thanks, > David > =--------------------- paul fox, pgf@xxxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-hotplug" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
