From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752221AbXDMCTJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Apr 2007 22:19:09 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752921AbXDMCTI (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Apr 2007 22:19:08 -0400 Received: from mx33.mail.ru ([194.67.23.194]:34441 "EHLO mx33.mail.ru" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752897AbXDMCTG (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Apr 2007 22:19:06 -0400 Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 06:15:50 +0400 From: Anton Vorontsov To: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh Cc: Matthew Garrett , kernel-discuss@handhelds.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dwmw2@infradead.org, Shem Multinymous Subject: Re: [Kernel-discuss] Re: [PATCH 3/7] [RFC] Battery monitoring class Message-ID: <20070413021550.GA15790@zarina> Reply-To: cbou@mail.ru References: <20070411232503.GC20095@zarina> <20070412130817.GA29900@srcf.ucam.org> <20070412141505.GA25552@zarina> <20070412142430.GA31240@srcf.ucam.org> <1734853889.20070412173626@gmail.com> <20070412185630.GC27804@khazad-dum.debian.net> <20070412204413.GA3151@zarina> <20070413005112.GA20890@khazad-dum.debian.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070413005112.GA20890@khazad-dum.debian.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.14 (2007-02-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 09:51:12PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Anton Vorontsov wrote: > > Let's name attributes with mWh units as {min_,max_,design_,}energy, > > and attributes with mAh units as {min_,max_,design_,}charge. > > [...] > > > * Yup, I've read last discussion regarding batteries, and I've seen > > objections against "charge" term, quoting Shem Multinymous: > > > > "And, for the reasons I explained earlier, I strongly suggest not using > > the term "charge" except when referring to the action of charging. > > Hence: > > s/charge_rate/rate/; s/charge/capacity/" > > > > But lets think about it once again? We'll make things much cleaner > > if we'll drop "capacity" at all. > > I stand with Shem on this one. The people behind the SBS specification > seems to agree... that specification is aimed at *engineers* and still > avoids the obvious trap of using "charge" due to its high potential for > confusion. > > I don't even want to know how much of a mess the people writing applets > woudl make of it... :-( Okay, term "charge" is out of scope, I guess. But can we use "capacity" for xAh, and "energy" for xWh? I just trying to separate these terms somehow, and avoid "_units" stuff. > > > > That said, you may need to use uWh and uAh instead of mAh and mWh, though. > > > > Not sure. Is there any existing chip that can report uAh/uWh? That is > > great precision. > > The way things are going, it should be feasible for small embedded systems > quite soon. Refer to the previous thread. I see... is it also applicable to currents and voltages? I.e. should we use uA and uV from the start? -- Anton Vorontsov email: cbou@mail.ru backup email: ya-cbou@yandex.ru irc://irc.freenode.org/bd2