Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 00:51:58 +0900 (JST) From: Mitsuru IWASAKI <iwasaki@jp.FreeBSD.org> To: arch@freebsd.org Cc: audit@freebsd.org Subject: (was Re: cvs commit: src/sys/modules Makefile src/sys/modules/apm Mak ) Message-ID: <20011026.005158.71086516.iwasaki@jp.FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20011025.231348.92585814.iwasaki@jp.FreeBSD.org> References: <XFMail.011024104456.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <200110250505.f9P55R739324@harmony.village.org> <20011025.231348.92585814.iwasaki@jp.FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, I've just make patches for the recent apm module changes. http://people.freebsd.org/~iwasaki/apm/apm_module-20011025.diff The problems I'm tring to solve are; - Apm loadable module cannot inform other kernel components whether apm will be enabled (e.g. i386/isa/clock.c:startrtclock()'s TCS hack). SI_SUB_KLD stuff should be invoked earlier than SI_SUB_CPU. - APM and ACPI cannot co-exist together at the same time according to ACPI spec. They should be enabled exclusively by some sort of arbitration mechanism. - Now that `#ifdef DEV_APM' related code is almost obsolete. Also public apm(4) functions, such as apm_suspend(), cannot be called directly, should be called via abstracted interface. Note that the patches contain exchanging priority of SI_SUB_CPU and SI_SUB_KLD. I already checked dependency of all MOD_LOAD code on cpu_startup() related code (e.g. DELAY) roughly, but I'm not sure if there is no problem. I think that module load event code and kernel linker should not depend on SI_SUB_CPU... Any comments are welcome. I'll commit this early in Nov. Thanks To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011026.005158.71086516.iwasaki>