From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vojtech Pavlik Subject: Re: Generic battery interface Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 12:10:27 +0200 Message-ID: <20060728101026.GB25372@suse.cz> References: <20060728095806.GA2046@srcf.ucam.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from styx.suse.cz ([82.119.242.94]:62953 "EHLO mail.suse.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932608AbWG1KKb (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Jul 2006 06:10:31 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060728095806.GA2046@srcf.ucam.org> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Matthew Garrett Cc: "Brown, Len" , Shem Multinymous , Pavel Machek , kernel list , linux-thinkpad@linux-thinkpad.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 10:58:06AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > 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. Yes, HAL does a lot of ugly work to be able to gather the information it needs. -- Vojtech Pavlik Director SuSE Labs