[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: grub_halt()
From: |
Robert Millan |
Subject: |
Re: grub_halt() |
Date: |
Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:01:01 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) |
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 10:24:39PM +0100, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko
wrote:
> Felix Zielcke wrote:
> > grub_halt is on i386-pc defined as `void grub_halt (int no_apm)' but
> > everywhere else as `grub_halt (void)'
> > util/grub-emu.c has a #ifdef for these 2
> >
> > Shouldn't we just add an int parameter everywhere to make this more
> > simple?
> >
> >
> I think in future we'll have more different halt methods on different
> platforms. So we could do:
> grub_halt (int methods)
> And have e.g.
> GRUB_HALT_DEFAULT_METHODS
> And e.g. on i386:
> #define GRUB_HALT_DEFAULT_METHODS
> (GRUB_HALT_APM|GRUB_HALT_ACPI|GRUB_HALT_HANG)
I was hoping we could remove complexity rather than add more of it.
Why would higher layer (who's just calling grub_halt because it wants the
system to shutdown) want to know about things like APM or ACPI ?
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."