On Sun, May 06, 2007 at 03:06:04PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Sat, 05 May 2007, Paul Sokolovsky wrote: > > Saturday, May 5, 2007, 4:46:26 PM, you wrote: > > > On Sat, 2007-05-05 at 00:54 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > >> Given that USB-power *is* usually also "dumb" (i.e. it doesn't do any > > >> control signaling over the USB bus for power-control purposes), > > > > > it might be dumb, but it is useful to know wether the PDA is charging > > > from usb or mains power. and some devices allow one to switch on / off > > > the ability to charge via usb > > > > And USB does have power budgetting requirements, etc. (like > > was already pointed in own of initial review messages). So, USB > > is definitely not the same thing as "dumb DC". > > Everything does. A dumb DC power source is a dumb DC power source. USB is > no different here, *unless* it is using USB signaling to control the power > link, at which point it is not a dumb DC power source anymore. > > There really is no difference beween an AC brick, a DC brick, an AC/DC > brick, or an USB port supplying DC power in a dumb way in a laptop or > handheld: they are all supposed-continous DC power supplies with a maximum > power budget. > > But the "GUI should show it differently" part does make sense. I am not > completely convinced a high number of top-level types is the best way to go > about it, though. I'd use subtypes, and a comprehensive enough set of > standard types and sub-types, along with a description of exactly what they > are to be used for. This will make it MUCH easier on the userspace side for > GUI authors, and it will be much better for people to not use the wrong > types when converting to the new class...
Um... well, if we'll speak for easiness, then just "type" is more easy and less error-prone than type + subtype. ;-) So, personally I see nothing wrong with MAINS/USB/Battery/UPS power supply types. Though, as you may noticed I'm easy to convince. ;-) So, if you'll elaborate it, I might finally will see my wrongness. Just in case I'll be convinced... .type = POWER_SUPPLY_TYPE_MAINS, .subtype = POWER_SUPPLY_SUBTYPE_USB, Looks okay? .type = POWER_SUPPLY_TYPE_MAINS, .subtype = POWER_SUPPLY_SUBTYPE_AC, And SUBTYPE_AC looks not good already, because we indeed tried to avoid AC/DC meanings in type fields, because current_type attribute will be better. So, what subtype name we should use? .type = POWER_SUPPLY_TYPE_BATTERY, .subtype = POWER_SUPPLY_SUBTYPE_????, What should be in "????" for plain batteries? Should UPS be subtype of battery type? .type = POWER_SUPPLY_TYPE_MAINS, .subtype = POWER_SUPPLY_SUBTYPE_UPS, Just wrong. So, notice that subtype brings complications, not solves them. Thanks! -- Anton Vorontsov email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] backup email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] irc://irc.freenode.org/bd2 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
