On Friday 08 September 2006 16:33, Dave Jones wrote: > On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 01:21:23PM -0700, Kristen Carlson Accardi wrote: > > On Fri, 8 Sep 2006 20:58:42 +0100 > > Matthew Garrett <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > can then be used by udev to unmount or rescan depending on the event. It will > > > > create a proc entry under /proc/acpi/bay for "eject" and for "status". Writing > > > > > > Do we really want it under /proc? It would seem to make more sense for > > > it to be under /sys. > > > > I agree - this is under proc because this is an acpi driver, and the acpi > > subsystem is still using the /proc fs for driver/user space interface. I > > thought I would just conform to their standard. > > It's my understanding from talking with Len that he'd like to see /proc/acpi/ > go away over time, so adding more to it seems to be at odds with that goal. Dave is right. We've had a moratorium on new files under /proc/acpi for some time now. The reason is that user-space should not know or care that something is supplied by ACPI -- for on other systems it may be supplied by something else. So new stuff should have generic names under sys -- even if on a large body of systems the functionality beneath happens to be supplied via ACPI. an example of old is the brightness stuff under /proc/acpi and in various platform specific drivers that scribble under /proc/acpi. The corresponding example of new is the backlight I/F under /sys. thanks, -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
