On Sun, Mar 21, 2021 at 11:56:42AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: > The sensor framework generally does not know where a sensor is. A > sensor could reside on some device which has been plugged in, rather > than be the primary sensor. > > But the users of apm are only hoping for best effort. > > meaning "some information", not "perfect information". Many PC BIOS > have lied in these fields before also, yet all the apm command users > survived. That's what my diff does really: best effort for some information.
> So which is better: > > (1) try to emit some information for the people who quicky-use the apm > interface > > (2) change apm to not print those lines on architectures where we are unsure. > > I think (1) is acceptable for a tool which has never promised perfect > accuracy. I concur (obviously). > I suspect hard-wiring this to one driver is going to be better than scanning > the sensor list and heuristically determining which specific sensors to look > at, > because the only good selector now is strcmp(sensor->desc, "battery remaining > minutes") > yuck. To be fair, kettenis proposed a rough idea to have simpler/faster checks than strcmp(). With a simple flag you wouldn't need any heuristics either but let the sensor framework -which has all the pieces- do the work and put a stamp on the ready-to-use value saying "use this as battery level".
