kay wrote: > On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 17:50, David Zeuthen <david@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. Â some sample output from udevadm test, and udevadm are > >> available here: Â 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). Trying to hide or ignore events at the udev level is just wrong > > on a number of levels. > > Yeah, that's the same issue as last_rule. It's really wrong to show > stuff in sysfs which gets enumerated, but to try to suppress such > events at device creation time. can someone point me at a thread that explains why being able to configure one's system to ignore a device is so plainly wrong? i'm clearly missing something. and, conversely, can someone perhaps tell me why the currently documented (and clearly at least partially implemented) option that should let me ignore a device doesn't seem to work? (my need for this feature is temporary -- hopefully by the time it's deprecated in a released udev, similar functionality will have been recreated (!) in devkit-power, or the XO's need will have gone away.) paul =--------------------- 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
