Subject: Re: MI APM support
To: Matt Thomas <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Nathan J. Williams <nathanw@MIT.EDU>
Date: 08/11/1999 09:28:37
<email@example.com> (Matt Thomas) writes:
> I'd like to split the current APM code into a MI front-end which handles the
> /dev/apm device and the MD backend which handles the real work. The other
> reason for this is so that architectures that may have multiple mechanisms
> can only attach the currently active mechanism (kind of like how /dev/fb
> attaches to the console).
I have a minor concern: APM is specifically the name for the
power-management system used on i386 boxes; does it make sense to call
power management facilites on other systems (like your SPARC) "APM"?
From what I know of APM I have to believe that the SPARC power
management mechanisim is totally different.
Is the apm(4) interface actually appropriate for the SPARC's power
management facilites? How close a fit is it?