linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/7] [RFC] Battery monitoring class

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]

Message-ID: <20070412142430.GA31240@srcf.ucam.org>
Date:	Thu, 12 Apr 2007 15:24:30 +0100
From:	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
To:	Anton Vorontsov <cbou@...l.ru>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-discuss@...dhelds.org,
	dwmw2@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] [RFC] Battery monitoring class

On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 06:15:05PM +0400, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 02:08:18PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > ACPI batteries can report capacity and rate in either mA or mW. Given
> 
> You sure, capacity in mA? Then I don't know. But you can safely
> fallback and create your own attribute (just as in David's battery class,
> where every battery required to create its own attributes), plus create
> capacity_units attribute. So, user space will know your driver's specific
> units.

Well, mAh, but yes. Clearly it's possible to add extra attributes, but 
speccing standard attributes that don't entirely cover the most common 
non-embedded battery class seems less than ideal. Why not just require
capacity_units and rate_units attributes?

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@...f.ucam.org
-
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/