Re: Re: Re: Smart Battery System driver

[Rich Townsend <rhdt-OBnUx95tOyn10jlvfTC4gA@public.gmane.org>]

Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-01-21 at 12:06 -0500, Rich Townsend wrote:
> 
> 
>>But aren't we really looking for a kernel-based libpower -- so that 
>>*nothing* in userspace needs be exposed to the specifics of the hardware?
> 
> 
> No. The kernel should provide information and functionality, not define
> policy. A good comparison point might be the lm-sensors code - each
> driver provides all the information it can, and the userland libsensors
> abstracts that away from everything else.
> 

Yes, but isn't the lm-sensors kernel code accessed through a uniform 
API?   That's what we need for the kernel battery stuff; at the moment, 
CM batteries are interfaced using ACPI control methods, while Smart 
Batteries are interfaced using SMBus accesses. Wouldn't it be a good 
idea to present all of the available battery info through some unified 
interface? Or are you arguing that this should all be done (as much as 
possible) in userland?



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IntelliVIEW -- Interactive Reporting
Tool for open source databases. Create drag-&-drop reports. Save time
by over 75%! Publish reports on the web. Export to DOC, XLS, RTF, etc.
Download a FREE copy at http://www.intelliview.com/go/osdn_nl