linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] battery: Fix charge_now returned by broken batteries

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 05 Oct 2009 02:56:55 +0400
From:	Alexey Starikovskiy <astarikovskiy@...e.de>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
CC:	Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>,
	Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br>,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] battery: Fix charge_now returned by broken batteries

Rafael J. Wysocki пишет:
> On Sunday 04 October 2009, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
>> Hi Rafael,
> 
> Alex,
> 
>> 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.
> 
> I think we're talking about two different things.  One thing is that we
> shouldn't put any _arbitrary_ interpretation rules into the kernel, which I
> agree with.  The other one is that if there's a _known_ _broken_ hardware
> and one possible way of handling it is to add a quirk into the kernel, we
> should at least consider doing that.
> 
> In my opinion adding a quirk for a broken hardware is not equivalent to
> "inferring not available properties using some heuristics or mathematical
> model", if that's what you're referring to.
No, this is not a clear "bug" and not a clear "fix". Please read my reply to Miguel.

> 
> That said, the patch should not change the _default_ code in order to handle
> the quirky hardware correctly.  IMO, the quirky hardware should be recognized
It will change behaviour of at least Samsung notebooks, for which I personally saw the 
charge_now/full_charge being greater then design_charge.
> during initialisation, if possible, and later handled in a special way.  If
> it's not possible to detect the broken hardware reliably, I agree that there's
> nothing we can do about that in the kernel.
I am still not sure if we have a broken hardware here.

Regards,
Alex.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/