From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [PATCH] battery: Fix charge_now returned by broken batteries Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 00:43:56 +0200 Message-ID: <200910050043.56667.rjw@sisk.pl> References: <1254669853.26496.0.camel@carter> <200910042246.23712.rjw@sisk.pl> <4AC91578.2020807@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4AC91578.2020807@suse.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Alexey Starikovskiy Cc: Miguel Ojeda , Henrique de Moraes Holschuh , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Sunday 04 October 2009, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote: > Hi Rafael, Alex, > This is not my rule, it was/is the rule of power device class. If you do not agree to it, please change > appropriate documentation. I think we're talking about two different things. One thing is that we shouldn't put any _arbitrary_ interpretation rules into the kernel, which I agree with. The other one is that if there's a _known_ _broken_ hardware and one possible way of handling it is to add a quirk into the kernel, we should at least consider doing that. In my opinion adding a quirk for a broken hardware is not equivalent to "inferring not available properties using some heuristics or mathematical model", if that's what you're referring to. That said, the patch should not change the _default_ code in order to handle the quirky hardware correctly. IMO, the quirky hardware should be recognized during initialisation, if possible, and later handled in a special way. If it's not possible to detect the broken hardware reliably, I agree that there's nothing we can do about that in the kernel. Thanks, Rafael