On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 11:00:30AM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 18:07:16 +0300
> Anton Vorontsov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hi Andres,
> >
> [...]
> >
> > Then, what the power supply subsystem is for? Just place all the
> > drivers together in driver/power/, and let t
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 18:07:16 +0300
Anton Vorontsov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Andres,
>
[...]
>
> Then, what the power supply subsystem is for? Just place all the
> drivers together in driver/power/, and let them create sysfs
> attributes by their own. You'll get a medley, not the subsystem
Hi Andres,
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 06:13:04PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 21:50:50 +0300
> Anton Vorontsov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 01:02:41PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > > Hm. It occurs to me that there's nothing keeping
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 21:50:50 +0300
Anton Vorontsov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 01:02:41PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
> [...]
> > > > Hm. It occurs to me that there's nothing keeping us from having a
> > > > single callback for the driver properties. Keeping the other p
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 01:02:41PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
[...]
> > > Hm. It occurs to me that there's nothing keeping us from having a
> > > single callback for the driver properties. Keeping the other patches
> > > the same, do you prefer the following approach versus what was originally
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 15:35:46 +0300
Anton Vorontsov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 02:10:01AM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:24:16 +0300
> > Anton Vorontsov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 02:41:39AM -0500, Andres Salomon
On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 02:10:01AM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:24:16 +0300
> Anton Vorontsov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 02:41:39AM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > > On Sun, 2007-12-16 at 21:24 -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
> > >
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:24:16 +0300
Anton Vorontsov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 02:41:39AM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
> [...]
> > > > On Sun, 2007-12-16 at 21:24 -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
> > > > > This API has the power_supply drivers device their own
> > > > > devic
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 02:41:39AM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
[...]
> > > On Sun, 2007-12-16 at 21:24 -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
> > > > This API has the power_supply drivers device their own device_attribute
> > > > list; I find this to be a lot more flexible and cleaner.
> >
> > I don't se
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 08:51:23 +0300
Anton Vorontsov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello Andres, David,
>
> Firstly, Andres, thank you for the efforts.
>
> I quite foreseen what exactly you had in mind when we were
> discussing the idea. With patches it's indeed easier to show
> flaws of this appro
Hello Andres, David,
Firstly, Andres, thank you for the efforts.
I quite foreseen what exactly you had in mind when we were
discussing the idea. With patches it's indeed easier to show
flaws of this approach.
On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 09:36:24PM -0500, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-12-16
On Sun, 2007-12-16 at 21:24 -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
> This API has the power_supply drivers device their own device_attribute
> list; I find this to be a lot more flexible and cleaner. For example,
> rather than having a function with a huge switch statement (as olpc_battery
> currently has),
12 matches
Mail list logo
