linux-kernel - RE: Generic battery interface

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 27 Jul 2006 19:20:08 -0400
From:	"Brown, Len" <len.brown@...el.com>
To:	"Pavel Machek" <pavel@...e.cz>
Cc:	"Shem Multinymous" <multinymous@...il.com>,
	"Matthew Garrett" <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>, <vojtech@...e.cz>,
	"kernel list" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-thinkpad@...ux-thinkpad.org>, <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: Generic battery interface

>Anyone volunteers write battery layer? If so, I'd go with /dev/XXX,

I'd like to take a swing at it.
If it catches on, I'd be happy to maintain it.

I think we should be able to make different underlying battery
instrumentation make sense to user-space -- even Zaurus-style systems.

I'm not religious about /dev vs. /sys.  At the end of the day I think
that an easy and consistent programming I/F between user and kernel
is the highest priority, and at the moment for this type of thing
I think /dev is simpler than /proc or /sys files.  But if using
/dev has some fatal flaw, I'll be happy to change to /sys.
Also, there is no law that says we can't do some of both
if that turns out to be useful.

-Len
-
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/