From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758113AbZJDVhh (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Oct 2009 17:37:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758044AbZJDVhg (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Oct 2009 17:37:36 -0400 Received: from charybdis-ext.suse.de ([195.135.221.2]:53102 "EHLO emea5-mh.id5.novell.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758036AbZJDVhg (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Oct 2009 17:37:36 -0400 Message-ID: <4AC91578.2020807@suse.de> Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 01:36:56 +0400 From: Alexey Starikovskiy User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" CC: Miguel Ojeda , Henrique de Moraes Holschuh , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] battery: Fix charge_now returned by broken batteries References: <1254669853.26496.0.camel@carter> <4AC8F02B.6080209@suse.de> <200910042246.23712.rjw@sisk.pl> In-Reply-To: <200910042246.23712.rjw@sisk.pl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Rafael, 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. Regards, Alex. Rafael J. Wysocki пишет: > On Sunday 04 October 2009, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote: >> Hi Miguel, > > Hi Alex, > >> I am going to reject your patch on the basis, that the battery driver should report only >> information it gained from battery hardware, not interpret it in any way. >> As your patch fall into "interpret" category, it does not belong in the kernel and battery >> driver in particular. You may suggest it to any/all user space battery monitoring applications, >> this is the place for "interpretations". > > Well, we do quirks for PCI devices, suspend quirks etc. in the kernel, so I'm > not really sure we should use the "no interpretation" as a general rule. IMO, > if there's a known broken system needing a quirk, it may just be more > reasonable to put the quirk into the kernel than to put it into every single > user application out there. > > In this particular case we have an evidently quirky hardware (or BIOS) and it's > not a fundamentally wrong idea to try to address that problem in the kernel. > > Thanks, > Rafael