On Thu, 15 Jan 2009, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 01:45:19PM -0500, Len Brown wrote: > > While useful to a techie, it is hard to imagine that these will > > become useful to a generic Linux GUI some day that is used by > > regular people. > > I think it makes sense to tie them to uevents on the appropriate generic > devices. Even if most hardware doesn't generate them, the ability to pop > up a notification telling the user that the firmware thinks their system > is too hot is useful. Well, it should actually be useful even without the uevents... as long as the desktop environments are actually smart enough to notice the kernel really wants to tell the user something when it outputs CRITICAL, ALERT and EMERGENCY level messages... Anyway, I actually asked Lenovo what we should do when we get such alarms. For the non-critical alarms, they suggest warning the user that he needs to take IMMEDIATE action (save work and suspend, hibernate or power down). For the critical alarms, the operating system is to initate an immediate, forced S3 or S4 suspend. There is real risk of hardware damage if the machine is not powered down to S3 or S4 levels within a few seconds (thermal alarm), or of data loss (power failure imminent). Since those are two very generic and proper responses to two very generic and proper alarms, I am all for exporting them over uevents... in a generic way. That's why I didn't add thinkpad-acpi-specific uevents for them. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- 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
