Absolutely not. It makes sense now. The abstracted interface is not required
just to combine the interface to APM and ACPI. What John said was
"ACPI != PM". Note that APM != PM either.
We have people who write _real_ code (esp. for embedded systems) to do power
management. None of this UDI-written-in-bytecode style stuff - real C code.
I.e. "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it" :)
_That_ is the first-class citizen here, and _that_ is the thing for which we
require a generic power management API, allowing userspace to set and manage
the power management policies for individual devices, etc., as well as
managing the system-wide sleep macrostates.
It may happen that ACPI and the real native power management code can
happily share an interface. Where there's a conflict, though, the native
implementations should define the interface, and ACPI needs to try to fit
in.
-- dwmw2
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/