* RE: Battery "design capacity" incorrect
@ 2003-03-03 17:16 Grover, Andrew
[not found] ` <F760B14C9561B941B89469F59BA3A84725A1C3-sBd4vmA9Se4Lll3ZsUKC9FDQ4js95KgL@public.gmane.org>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Grover, Andrew @ 2003-03-03 17:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Matthew Keller, acpi-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f
> From: Matthew Keller [mailto:mgkeller-Rn4VEauK+AKRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org]
> Below is the output
> (/proc/acpi/batter/BAT1/info) for the battery in my Gateway
> Solo 1450X.
> The design capacity should be right around what the "last
> full capacity"
> says. I've confirmed this on Sanyo's site. I would like to note that
> everything is **perfect** with a different Sanyo model
> battery that is a
> "extra capacity" battery. Is there any source I can diddle?
> Proc entries
> I can echo some magic number into? etc? Thanks!
>
> present: yes
> design capacity: 5400 mWh
> last full capacity: 3864 mWh
So it always returns 5400 mWh, no matter what, is what I think you're
saying, yes?
If this isn't a problem on Windows, I think we can assume it is using
the last full capacity when generating percent full numbers. Maybe we
should do the same?
Regards -- Andy
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread[parent not found: <F760B14C9561B941B89469F59BA3A84725A1C3-sBd4vmA9Se4Lll3ZsUKC9FDQ4js95KgL@public.gmane.org>]
* RE: Battery "design capacity" incorrect [not found] ` <F760B14C9561B941B89469F59BA3A84725A1C3-sBd4vmA9Se4Lll3ZsUKC9FDQ4js95KgL@public.gmane.org> @ 2003-03-03 19:01 ` Matthew Keller [not found] ` <1046718101.3209.60.camel-a2ysWtvtB4BRjtM+DFHcO/Z8FUJU4vz8@public.gmane.org> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Matthew Keller @ 2003-03-03 19:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Grover, Andrew; +Cc: acpi-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f On Mon, 2003-03-03 at 12:16, Grover, Andrew wrote: > > From: Matthew Keller [mailto:mgkeller-Rn4VEauK+AKRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org] > > Below is the output > > (/proc/acpi/batter/BAT1/info) for the battery in my Gateway > > Solo 1450X. > > The design capacity should be right around what the "last > > full capacity" > > says. I've confirmed this on Sanyo's site. I would like to note that > > everything is **perfect** with a different Sanyo model > > battery that is a > > "extra capacity" battery. Is there any source I can diddle? > > Proc entries > > I can echo some magic number into? etc? Thanks! > > > > present: yes > > design capacity: 5400 mWh > > last full capacity: 3864 mWh > > So it always returns 5400 mWh, no matter what, is what I think you're > saying, yes? > > If this isn't a problem on Windows, I think we can assume it is using > the last full capacity when generating percent full numbers. Maybe we > should do the same? > > Regards -- Andy Correct. My main question is where is ACPI "getting" the 5400 from? Various Windows tools, and even the manufacturer's specs claim "3860" or "3870" as the capacity (tools and manufacturer respectively). I've changed various Linux tools that I've written to do the math based on the "last full capacity", but a lot of "other people's tools" use "design capacity" which is "better", in my opinion as it can let you know if you're having a calibration problem. -- Matthew Keller Enterprise Systems Analyst Computing & Technology Services State University of New York @ Potsdam Potsdam, NY USA http://mattwork.potsdam.edu/ ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <1046718101.3209.60.camel-a2ysWtvtB4BRjtM+DFHcO/Z8FUJU4vz8@public.gmane.org>]
* RE: Battery "design capacity" incorrect [not found] ` <1046718101.3209.60.camel-a2ysWtvtB4BRjtM+DFHcO/Z8FUJU4vz8@public.gmane.org> @ 2003-03-03 20:33 ` Troy Schultz 2003-03-04 14:16 ` Richard Black 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Troy Schultz @ 2003-03-03 20:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Matthew Keller; +Cc: ACPI Development - Sourceforge > Correct. My main question is where is ACPI "getting" the 5400 from? > Various Windows tools, and even the manufacturer's specs claim "3860" or > "3870" as the capacity (tools and manufacturer respectively). I've > changed various Linux tools that I've written to do the math based on > the "last full capacity", but a lot of "other people's tools" use > "design capacity" which is "better", in my opinion as it can let you > know if you're having a calibration problem. I wonder if the design capacity in your case is the capacity of the battery if it were fully charged and then fully depleated, a situation which would and should never occurr. The last full capacity is what should be used in any calculation of percent charged as this will be changed to reflect the battery wear as the battery goes through its usefull life. I have made changes to the battstat applet I use to use the last full capacity in the calcualtions. Best Regards -- Troy Schultz <tschultz-zzOxFVvAfJPQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Battery "design capacity" incorrect 2003-03-03 20:33 ` Troy Schultz @ 2003-03-04 14:16 ` Richard Black 0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Richard Black @ 2003-03-04 14:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ACPI Development - Sourceforge I see this patch (design capacity patch) at http://sourceforge.net/projects/battstat/; however, I don't see the 2 battery patch someone had not too long ago. Whoever has the 2 battery patch, could you post it to http://sourceforge.net/projects/battstat/? Thanks in advance, Richard Black Troy Schultz wrote: >>Correct. My main question is where is ACPI "getting" the 5400 from? >>Various Windows tools, and even the manufacturer's specs claim "3860" or >>"3870" as the capacity (tools and manufacturer respectively). I've >>changed various Linux tools that I've written to do the math based on >>the "last full capacity", but a lot of "other people's tools" use >>"design capacity" which is "better", in my opinion as it can let you >>know if you're having a calibration problem. >> >> > >I wonder if the design capacity in your case is the capacity of the >battery if it were fully charged and then fully depleated, a situation >which would and should never occurr. The last full capacity is what >should be used in any calculation of percent charged as this will be >changed to reflect the battery wear as the battery goes through its >usefull life. > >I have made changes to the battstat applet I use to use the last full >capacity in the calcualtions. > >Best Regards > > -- Sincerely, Richard Black http://www.cpqlinux.com http://www.compaq.com/linux ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Etnus, makers of TotalView, The debugger for complex code. Debugging C/C++ programs can leave you feeling lost and disoriented. TotalView can help you find your way. Available on major UNIX and Linux platforms. Try it free. www.etnus.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* RE: Battery "design capacity" incorrect @ 2003-03-03 19:11 Grover, Andrew 0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Grover, Andrew @ 2003-03-03 19:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Matthew Keller; +Cc: acpi-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f > From: Matthew Keller [mailto:mgkeller-Rn4VEauK+AKRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org] > > > design capacity: 5400 mWh > > So it always returns 5400 mWh, no matter what, is what I > think you're > > saying, yes? > Correct. My main question is where is ACPI "getting" the 5400 from? > Various Windows tools, and even the manufacturer's specs > claim "3860" or > "3870" as the capacity (tools and manufacturer respectively). I've > changed various Linux tools that I've written to do the math based on > the "last full capacity", but a lot of "other people's tools" use > "design capacity" which is "better", in my opinion as it can let you > know if you're having a calibration problem. ACPI is getting the 5400 by calling the _BIF control method, which returns that value - i.e. from the BIOS. I'd have to see the ASL to know whether the BIOS is dynamically determining that, or not. Regards -- Andy ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Battery "design capacity" incorrect @ 2003-03-01 18:15 Matthew Keller 0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Matthew Keller @ 2003-03-01 18:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: acpi-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f I've got a *very minor* problem. In fact, it's almost so trivial it's cosmetic, but if there is an easy fix it would be one less nuisance! ACPI is working SPLENDIDLY (2.4.21-pre<something> + acpi patches) and I'm very happy with it. It does, however, think my battery has a "design capacity" much higher than it actually is. This results in various scripts I've written, as well as the Gnome battery applet thinking it's always only 71% full even when it's fully charged and a-ok. It does the same with my spares of the same make/model. Below is the output (/proc/acpi/batter/BAT1/info) for the battery in my Gateway Solo 1450X. The design capacity should be right around what the "last full capacity" says. I've confirmed this on Sanyo's site. I would like to note that everything is **perfect** with a different Sanyo model battery that is a "extra capacity" battery. Is there any source I can diddle? Proc entries I can echo some magic number into? etc? Thanks! present: yes design capacity: 5400 mWh last full capacity: 3864 mWh battery technology: rechargeable design voltage: 11100 mV design capacity warning: 250 mWh design capacity low: 100 mWh capacity granularity 1: 10 mWh capacity granularity 2: 25 mWh model number: UAL3$ serial number: battery type: LION OEM info: SANYO -- Matthew Keller Enterprise Systems Analyst Computing & Technology Services State University of New York @ Potsdam Potsdam, NY USA http://mattwork.potsdam.edu/ ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-03-04 14:16 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-03-03 17:16 Battery "design capacity" incorrect Grover, Andrew
[not found] ` <F760B14C9561B941B89469F59BA3A84725A1C3-sBd4vmA9Se4Lll3ZsUKC9FDQ4js95KgL@public.gmane.org>
2003-03-03 19:01 ` Matthew Keller
[not found] ` <1046718101.3209.60.camel-a2ysWtvtB4BRjtM+DFHcO/Z8FUJU4vz8@public.gmane.org>
2003-03-03 20:33 ` Troy Schultz
2003-03-04 14:16 ` Richard Black
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-03-03 19:11 Grover, Andrew
2003-03-01 18:15 Matthew Keller
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox