From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: Generic battery interface Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 10:58:06 +0100 Message-ID: <20060728095806.GA2046@srcf.ucam.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([217.147.92.49]:39068 "EHLO vavatch.codon.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932602AbWG1J6T (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Jul 2006 05:58:19 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: "Brown, Len" Cc: Shem Multinymous , Pavel Machek , vojtech@suse.cz, kernel list , linux-thinkpad@linux-thinkpad.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 12:05:35AM -0400, Brown, Len wrote: > Wonderful, but isn't the key here how simple it is for HAL > or X to understand and use the kernel API rather than the > developers of the kernel driver that implements the API? HAL currently gets most of its information from sysfs, and managed to deal with parsing the existing /proc/acpi/battery stuff. I don't think there's any real difficulty there. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org