Re: [Kernel-discuss] Re: [PATCH 3/7] [RFC] Battery monitoring class

[Anton Vorontsov <cbou@mail.ru>]

On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 09:51:12PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> > Let's name attributes with mWh units as {min_,max_,design_,}energy,
> > and attributes with mAh units as {min_,max_,design_,}charge.
> 
> [...]
> 
> > * Yup, I've read last discussion regarding batteries, and I've seen
> >   objections against "charge" term, quoting Shem Multinymous:
> > 
> >   "And, for the reasons I explained earlier, I strongly suggest not using
> >   the term "charge" except when referring to the action of charging.
> >   Hence:
> >   s/charge_rate/rate/;  s/charge/capacity/"
> > 
> >   But lets think about it once again? We'll make things much cleaner
> >   if we'll drop "capacity" at all.
> 
> I stand with Shem on this one.  The people behind the SBS specification
> seems to agree... that specification is aimed at *engineers* and still
> avoids the obvious trap of using "charge" due to its high potential for
> confusion.
> 
> I don't even want to know how much of a mess the people writing applets
> woudl make of it...

:-(

Okay, term "charge" is out of scope, I guess. But can we use "capacity"
for xAh, and "energy" for xWh? I just trying to separate these terms
somehow, and avoid "_units" stuff.

> 
> > > That said, you may need to use uWh and uAh instead of mAh and mWh, though.
> > 
> > Not sure. Is there any existing chip that can report uAh/uWh? That is
> > great precision.
> 
> The way things are going, it should be feasible for small embedded systems
> quite soon.  Refer to the previous thread.

I see... is it also applicable to currents and voltages? I.e. should we
use uA and uV from the start?

-- 
Anton Vorontsov
email: cbou@mail.ru
backup email: ya-cbou@yandex.ru
irc://irc.freenode.org/bd2