From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: [RFC] Controlling the ThinkPad battery charger Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 14:56:12 +0100 Message-ID: <20110509135612.GA1873@srcf.ucam.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([93.93.128.6]:53075 "EHLO cavan.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752676Ab1EIN4X (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 May 2011 09:56:23 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: platform-driver-x86-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Andrew Lutomirski Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ibm-acpi-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, Anton Vorontsov , David Woodhouse On Sun, May 08, 2011 at 08:35:32AM -0400, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: > I like option 2 better, since it means that a userspace tool (like > GNOME) could learn how to operate a battery charge controller once and > then other laptops and devices could reuse the same interface. The > problem is that the ACPI battery driver can't see the charge control. > So either it would need a hook to allow per-vendor control like this > or the power_supply class would need to recognize separate charge > controllers. I agree that this is preferable. One option would be to just use smapi and provide a hook to detach the ACPI driver, but that would potentially mean a certain amount of code duplication. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org