Hi!
> > However, it has since been reposted:
> >
> > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/485833
> > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/485834
> > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/485835
> > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/485837
> >
> > and merged back in
Hi!
However, it has since been reposted:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/485833
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/485834
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/485835
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/485837
and merged back in to -mm. This is
On 2/1/07, Rodolfo Giometti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ok, starting from these patches I'd like to add a "battery support" to
the kernel.
What I suppose to do is a new class with a proper methods useful to
collect several info on battery status, such as get_ac_line_status()
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 10:00:55AM +0900, Paul Mundt wrote:
> However, it has since been reposted:
>
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/485833
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/485834
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/485835
>
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 10:00:55AM +0900, Paul Mundt wrote:
However, it has since been reposted:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/485833
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/485834
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/485835
On 2/1/07, Rodolfo Giometti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, starting from these patches I'd like to add a battery support to
the kernel.
What I suppose to do is a new class with a proper methods useful to
collect several info on battery status, such as get_ac_line_status()
get_battery_status(),
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 10:00:55AM +0900, Paul Mundt wrote:
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/485831
>
> However, it has since been reposted:
>
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/485833
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/485834
>
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 10:00:55AM +0900, Paul Mundt wrote:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/485831
However, it has since been reposted:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/485833
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/485834
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 12:07:56AM +0100, Rodolfo Giometti wrote:
> some months ago I sent to the MIPS and ARM mail lists a patch to unify
> the several APM emulation codes adding a new dedicated directory so it
> can be used to put there the per board specific code avoiding code
> duplications
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 11:53:46PM +, Richard Purdie wrote:
> I'm not sure this is a good idea. As you're creating a new interface,
> why not create something new/improved without the problems that
> confining yourself to APM emulation brings?
Because several applications (and expecially in
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 00:07 +0100, Rodolfo Giometti wrote:
> Now I try on this list in order to have some advice if this could be a
> good idea and what about if I add a new class "apm_emu" on the sysfs
> support with proper registrations functions.
I'm not sure this is a good idea. As you're
Hello,
some months ago I sent to the MIPS and ARM mail lists a patch to unify
the several APM emulation codes adding a new dedicated directory so it
can be used to put there the per board specific code avoiding code
duplications (see files ./arch/arm/kernel/apm.c,
./arch/mips/kernel/apm.c and
Hello,
some months ago I sent to the MIPS and ARM mail lists a patch to unify
the several APM emulation codes adding a new dedicated directory so it
can be used to put there the per board specific code avoiding code
duplications (see files ./arch/arm/kernel/apm.c,
./arch/mips/kernel/apm.c and
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 00:07 +0100, Rodolfo Giometti wrote:
Now I try on this list in order to have some advice if this could be a
good idea and what about if I add a new class apm_emu on the sysfs
support with proper registrations functions.
I'm not sure this is a good idea. As you're creating
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 11:53:46PM +, Richard Purdie wrote:
I'm not sure this is a good idea. As you're creating a new interface,
why not create something new/improved without the problems that
confining yourself to APM emulation brings?
Because several applications (and expecially in
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 12:07:56AM +0100, Rodolfo Giometti wrote:
some months ago I sent to the MIPS and ARM mail lists a patch to unify
the several APM emulation codes adding a new dedicated directory so it
can be used to put there the per board specific code avoiding code
duplications (see
16 matches
Mail list logo