On Thursday 19 May 2016 17:57:34 Andrew F. Davis wrote:
> On 05/19/2016 10:51 AM, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > On Thursday 19 May 2016 17:48:29 Andrew F. Davis wrote:
> >> On 05/19/2016 10:44 AM, Pali Rohár wrote:
> >>> On Thursday 19 May 2016 17:38:14 Andrew F. Davis wrote:
> >>>> P.S. The code is still a bit strange, I'll probably go grab one
> >>>> of the N900s from our test farm and make sure my future
> >>>> cleanups don't break this, but are we sure the *name* of a
> >>>> driver is an ABI?
> >>> 
> >>> It is not name of driver, but directory name of sysfs path where
> >>> device is exported...
> >> 
> >> Which is named after the drivers name, so the same question
> >> remains.
> >> 
> >> :/
> > 
> > No, it is not driver name, but device name. That is different.
> 
> My bad, that's what I meant, device names should be dynamic, right?
> Relying on them being static in software would then be buggy (like
> relying on eth0 being the right NIC everytime)?
> 
> I'm not familiar with the N900 software, but IDR can give out
> different numbers and may not always give the first battery #0 (it
> does now but is that a guarantee in IDR?) and if not then what is
> the userspace response to this changing?

In case N900 would have more bq27xxx batteries, then yes. But N900 has 
exactly *one* bq27200 battery, so there is no IDR problem.

-- 
Pali Rohár
pali.rohar@gmail.com