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 ?
Sjoerd
--
The solution to a problem changes the nature of the problem.
-- Peer
-
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
