Re: [MiNT] Shutdown() discussion

[Odd Skancke <ozk@atari.org>]

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Petr Stehlik wrote:

> V St, 10. 12. 2003 v 17:42, Odd Skancke pí¹e:
> > are you OK with having ARAnyM specific code in APM.XDD
>
> >  I have nothing against the former method. This is an ARAnyM specific XDD,
> > and the ARAnyM specific code is where it belongs.
>
> APM.XDD would actually be an "Advanced Power Management" module that
> would cover all APM schemas available currently, including ARAnyM and
> CT60 - that was my original thought.

 If you think that is the best way, and having support for both hardware
types in one XDD isnt gonna make it too big, then great.

>
> > PSU into my hades, and in some way connect it, I would have to make an
> > APM-HADE.XDD. And the same for the Milan
>
> so what you mean is a bunch of APM flavors, one APM module for each
> platform. Isn't this a maintenance nightmare for EasyMiNT-like
> distributions? I am not against that, just trying to imagine how it
> would work out.

 This was an example, where I tried to illustrate the importance of going
the XDD route to support hardware. If APM is the same on all current
hardware, I see no problems supporting it all from the same XDD. But this
is not excuse to put such things into the kernel itself. All of the sudden
we might see new things... and having faulty hardware handling in the
kernel is a lot worse than just having to disable the XDD. Let me point
out - I'm not saying that WILL happen with APM .. but it MAY. Let me also
point out that this scenario applies to a lot more than just APM.

>
> > You do see the difference
> > between having this separately in an XDD rather than having it in the
> > kernel itself?
>
> Sure. I think the XDD way is the most reasonable one and makes everyone
> happy. I am just curious whether APM-<HWplatformName>.XDD is the way to
> go.

 As this is an XDD, you dont need to worry about my opinion on that. My
opinion is that "do what you want" with it. If I dont like it, I can
choose to NOT use the XDD. If I like it, I will use the XDD. However, if
it is forced upon me (put into the kernel), I will NOT be happy :) If I
somehow manage to get money for a CT60, and your APM.XDD works with it, I
will use it. My hades dont have need for such things, so I dont use it.
See? :-)

 Anyway, my opinion is this: Since there are only two different hardware
APM solutions (or are they the same?), do feel free to support both in an
APM.XDD. If supporting both (or are there even more?) solutions will make
a 1meg XDD, it is better to go the APM-<HWplatform>.XDD path. (again, I'm
illustrating - this does not only apply to APM, if at all).


-- 
 Regards,

 Odd Skancke - ozk.atari.org - http://assemsoft.atari.org