On ?t 10-03-05 08:49:54, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > Hi. > > On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 20:36, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Hi! > > > > > > > Uh, that would really suck. This would entail a string parser in every > > > > > driver, which is what we wanted to get away from with sysfs. A better way > > > > > would be to have a driver export a file with the specific features that it > > > > > supports encoded in a meaningful and efficient way (i.e. a fixed-length > > > > > string, character, or constant). > > > > > > > > Agreed. > > > > > > <heresy> I wonder if using sysfs is even the best method for doing > > > run-time PM. It will force your imaginary nice userspace interface to > > > include code to scan the whole directory tree looking for files of each > > > kind, perhaps sorting and collating and so on. Maybe a DBus interface > > > would be better? </heresy> > > > > DBus is too hard to use from shell, and I do not think whole directory > > scan is so hard to do. > > Perhaps provide both? Of course I don't know what the implications No... I do not believe sysfs is ever going to be efficiency problem. If your machine is so big that your /sys is big, then your machine is fast enough to handle it. Pavel -- People were complaining that M$ turns users into beta-testers... ...jr ghea gurz vagb qrirybcref, naq gurl frrz gb yvxr vg gung jnl!
