Re: sensors fun..
- From: John-Mark Gurney <gurney_j@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 15:20:04 -0700
John Baldwin wrote this message on Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 12:45 -0400:
Basically, I think there should be a "real" abstracted interface in userland
that can use various backends. One backend could be to query sensors from
drivers that provide them directly (lm(4), etc.). Another backend could use
the existing IPMI interface to query SDR sensors via IPMI commands to the
BMC. Different RAID controllers could provide backends that communicate with
the firmware to maintain whatever state is needed, etc. but w/o doing all
that in the device driver. People could write their own custom sensors w/o
having to write a kernel module. Maybe that's a bigger vision than you were
shooting for. I'm not sure phk@ will agree with this one either fwiw. :)
I'll second this.. Userland sensor modules should be first class just
like the kernel drivers... requiring no modification to utilities
like systat to display their information...
--
John-Mark Gurney Voice: +1 415 225 5579
"All that I will do, has been done, All that I have, has not."
_______________________________________________
freebsd-arch@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"
- References:
- sensors fun..
- From: John Baldwin
- sensors fun..
- Prev by Date: Re: kernel level virtualisation requirements.
- Next by Date: Re: kernel level virtualisation requirements.
- Previous by thread: Re: sensors fun..
- Next by thread: Re: sensors fun..
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
