From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexey Starikovskiy Subject: Re: [PATCH] battery: Fix charge_now returned by broken batteries Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 02:56:55 +0400 Message-ID: <4AC92837.80708@suse.de> References: <1254669853.26496.0.camel@carter> <200910042246.23712.rjw@sisk.pl> <4AC91578.2020807@suse.de> <200910050043.56667.rjw@sisk.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from charybdis-ext.suse.de ([195.135.221.2]:46311 "EHLO emea5-mh.id5.novell.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756098AbZJDW5f (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Oct 2009 18:57:35 -0400 In-Reply-To: <200910050043.56667.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Miguel Ojeda , Henrique de Moraes Holschuh , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Rafael J. Wysocki =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=88=D0=B5=D1=82: > On Sunday 04 October 2009, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote: >> Hi Rafael, >=20 > Alex, >=20 >> This is not my rule, it was/is the rule of power device class. If yo= u do not agree to it, please change >> appropriate documentation. >=20 > I think we're talking about two different things. One thing is that = we > shouldn't put any _arbitrary_ interpretation rules into the kernel, w= hich I > agree with. The other one is that if there's a _known_ _broken_ hard= ware > and one possible way of handling it is to add a quirk into the kernel= , we > should at least consider doing that. >=20 > In my opinion adding a quirk for a broken hardware is not equivalent = to > "inferring not available properties using some heuristics or mathemat= ical > model", if that's what you're referring to. No, this is not a clear "bug" and not a clear "fix". Please read my rep= ly to Miguel. >=20 > That said, the patch should not change the _default_ code in order to= handle > the quirky hardware correctly. IMO, the quirky hardware should be re= cognized It will change behaviour of at least Samsung notebooks, for which I per= sonally saw the=20 charge_now/full_charge being greater then design_charge. > during initialisation, if possible, and later handled in a special wa= y. If > it's not possible to detect the broken hardware reliably, I agree tha= t there's > nothing we can do about that in the kernel. I am still not sure if we have a broken hardware here. Regards, Alex. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757838AbZJDW5g (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Oct 2009 18:57:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757274AbZJDW5f (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Oct 2009 18:57:35 -0400 Received: from charybdis-ext.suse.de ([195.135.221.2]:46311 "EHLO emea5-mh.id5.novell.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756098AbZJDW5f (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Oct 2009 18:57:35 -0400 Message-ID: <4AC92837.80708@suse.de> Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 02:56:55 +0400 From: Alexey Starikovskiy User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" CC: Miguel Ojeda , Henrique de Moraes Holschuh , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] battery: Fix charge_now returned by broken batteries References: <1254669853.26496.0.camel@carter> <200910042246.23712.rjw@sisk.pl> <4AC91578.2020807@suse.de> <200910050043.56667.rjw@sisk.pl> In-Reply-To: <200910050043.56667.rjw@sisk.pl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Rafael J. Wysocki пишет: > On Sunday 04 October 2009, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote: >> Hi Rafael, > > Alex, > >> This is not my rule, it was/is the rule of power device class. If you do not agree to it, please change >> appropriate documentation. > > I think we're talking about two different things. One thing is that we > shouldn't put any _arbitrary_ interpretation rules into the kernel, which I > agree with. The other one is that if there's a _known_ _broken_ hardware > and one possible way of handling it is to add a quirk into the kernel, we > should at least consider doing that. > > In my opinion adding a quirk for a broken hardware is not equivalent to > "inferring not available properties using some heuristics or mathematical > model", if that's what you're referring to. No, this is not a clear "bug" and not a clear "fix". Please read my reply to Miguel. > > That said, the patch should not change the _default_ code in order to handle > the quirky hardware correctly. IMO, the quirky hardware should be recognized It will change behaviour of at least Samsung notebooks, for which I personally saw the charge_now/full_charge being greater then design_charge. > during initialisation, if possible, and later handled in a special way. If > it's not possible to detect the broken hardware reliably, I agree that there's > nothing we can do about that in the kernel. I am still not sure if we have a broken hardware here. Regards, Alex.