Sjoerd Simons wrote:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 02:01:34PM +0300, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
maximilian attems wrote:
got the following question:
~/src/hal$ egrep 'voltage_(max|min)_design' -r .
./hald/linux/device.c: if (hal_util_get_int_from_file (path, "voltage_max_design",
&voltage_design, 10)) {
any particular reason the kernel is calling it
cat /sys/class/power_supply/BAT0/voltage_min_design 14400000
shall i send in a patch along the line:
- case POWER_SUPPLY_PROP_VOLTAGE_MIN_DESIGN:
+ case POWER_SUPPLY_PROP_VOLTAGE_MAX_DESIGN:
val->intval = battery->design_voltage * 1000;
or is it hal beeing silly?
On most new batteries design voltage is less than current voltage, thus I've
chosen VOLTAGE_MIN_DESIGN.
On older batteries, current voltage may become lower than design, so I
think hal should not be very strict about how they relate to each other.
I'll patch up hal to use voltage_min_design if there is no voltage_max_design
available. Which should be fine as we already picked up the same value from
procfs for this property.
What it does make me wonder about, is why there is a difference between MIN and
MAX in the power_supply class. As this doesn't seem to have a strict meaning
(or at least not for ACPI). So why not just voltage_design instead ?
Don't know, may be they had battery for which both min and max voltages are known and
crossing each needs to be guarded...
Regards,
Alex.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
