>On 7/28/06, Brown, Len <len.brown@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I'm not religious about /dev vs. /sys. Tho I'm starting to feel like I've touched off some religion in others:-) >I would greatly prefer a sysfs interface. Understood. >Having a clean, textual sysfs API that's easily accessed from shell >has been extremely conductive for the development of the tp_smapi >driver -- users can easily test and script the driver without extra >programming and userspace components. Since tp_smapi is (AFAIK) the >most feature-rich battery driver we now have, this is some to >consider. > clean well, one man's "clean" is another man's "dirty", I guess this is subjective. > textual good for shell scripts, not clear it is better for C programs that have to open a bunch of files by name. > sysfs was great for develping tp_smapi Wonderful, but isn't the key here how simple it is for HAL or X to understand and use the kernel API rather than the developers of the kernel driver that implements the API? If X were a shell script, I'd say a file per value would clearly be the way to go, but it isn't. -Len - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
