On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 00:07 +0800, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2011, Thomas Renninger wrote:
> > I wonder whether netlink is the way to go for thermal
> > events at all.
> > Sending an udev event would already contain the sysfs
> > path to the thermal device. A variable which thermal event
> > got thrown could get added and userspace can read out the rest
> > easily from sysfs files. But I expect udev is not intended
> > for such general events?
>
> udev is heavyweight in the userspace side, we'd be much better off using the
> ACPI event interface (which is netlink), or a new one to deliver system
> status events, instead of continously abusing udev for this stuff.
>
> > > > Also, the thermal_aux0 and _aux1, we can use the final format specified by you.
> > > > enum events {
> > > > THERMAL_CRITICAL,
> > > > /* user defined thermal events */
> > > > THERMAL_USER_AUX0,
> > > > THERMAL_USER_AUX1,
> > > > THERMAL_DEV_FAULT,
> > > > };
>
> Please give us at least two levels of thermal alarm: critical and emergency
> (or warning and critical -- it doesn't matter much, as long as there are at
> least two levels, and which one comes first is defined by the
> specification). I'd have immediate use for them on thinkpads.
>
> It is probably best to have three levels (warning, critical, emergency).
> Best not to tie the API/ABI to the notion of "too hot", one can also alarm
> when it starts to get to cold.
>
when it's the "too hot" case, what kind of action should be taken upon
the warning/critical/emergency events?
I mean what's the difference between these three levels.
thanks,
rui
--
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
