From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bruno Ducrot Subject: Re: Re: first shoot for smartbattery Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 19:02:19 +0100 Message-ID: <20050103180219.GX19199@poupinou.org> References: <20041231092156.GA612@phys.ethz.ch> <41D56002.5060008@mega.ist.utl.pt> <20041231150724.GK19199@poupinou.org> <20041231181628.GL19199@poupinou.org> <20050101082605.GA24896@phys.ethz.ch> <20050103143902.GQ19199@poupinou.org> <41D97AF3.7000409@arrakis.dhis.org> <41D98251.9020002@arrakis.dhis.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <41D98251.9020002-pQd4kjVL+REh2FBCd0jGRA@public.gmane.org> Sender: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org Errors-To: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: To: Pedro Venda Cc: Johan Vromans , acpi-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 05:35:13PM +0000, Pedro Venda wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Pedro Venda wrote: > | Bruno Ducrot wrote: > | > | | I think I found was wrong. Please refetch, or (at your option) replace > | | i2c-acpi-ec.ec with > | | > | http://www.poupinou.org/acpi/smartbatt/smartbatt/i2c-acpi-ec/i2c-acpi-ec.c > | | then redo the sh compile.sh > | | Sorry, it was a stupid bug(tm) requiring that I buy a brown bag... > | > | happens to everyone. > | > | | Something wrong also with rmmod i2c-acpi-ec :( so you have to reboot in > | | order to be able to 'insmod i2c-acpi-ec.ko' again (I'm sure the brown > | | bag will still be helpfull also...). > > ok I made a small patch against your most recent code base: Thanks. > > included: > - - a Makefile for the i2c-acpi-ec module > - - a Makefile for the smartbattery program which also calls the > i2c-acpi-ec make > process. > > in the smartbattery directory, one just "make"s and everything gets built. Ok. > > I found out that when draining power from the battery with no AC power, the > value returned should be added to -65535 to result in the correct value. > > this puzzles me, because when the battery is being used, the returned value > seems to be subtracted from 65535 but when the AC is plugged, it seems to > come > out ok... Look at http://www.sbs-forum.org/specs/sbdat110.pdf 5.1.11. Current() why this happens. -- Bruno Ducrot -- Which is worse: ignorance or apathy? -- Don't know. Don't care. ------------------------------------------------------- The SF.Net email is sponsored by: Beat the post-holiday blues Get a FREE limited edition SourceForge.net t-shirt from ThinkGeek. It's fun and FREE -- well, almost....http://www.thinkgeek.com/sfshirt