Re: Re: Re: Smart Battery System driver

[Matthew Garrett <mjg59-1xO5oi07KQx4cg9Nei1l7Q@public.gmane.org>]

On Fri, 2005-01-21 at 13:04 -0500, Rich Townsend wrote:

> 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?

In general, if it can be done in userland, it should be done in
userland. A power management abstraction layer is needed anyway (A
userspace app should be able to request a suspend without knowing
whether the system is ACPI, APM, a Mac or whatever), so implementing the
batteries in whichever way requires least kernel code is almost
certainly the right answer.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-1xO5oi07KQx4cg9Nei1l7Q@public.gmane.org



-------------------------------------------------------
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