Re: Re: Re: Smart Battery System driver

Rich Townsend
2005-01-21T18:04:20Z

Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-01-21 at 12:06 -0500, Rich Townsend wrote:
>
>
>>But aren't we really looking for a kernel-based libpower -- so that
>>*nothing* in userspace needs be exposed to the specifics of the hardware?
>
>
> No. The kernel should provide information and functionality, not define
> policy. A good comparison point might be the lm-sensors code - each
> driver provides all the information it can, and the userland libsensors
> abstracts that away from everything else.
>

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?

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