linux-kernel - Re: [Kernel-discuss] 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: <20070413021550.GA15790@zarina>
Date:	Fri, 13 Apr 2007 06:15:50 +0400
From:	Anton Vorontsov <cbou@...l.ru>
To:	Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br>
Cc:	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
	kernel-discuss@...dhelds.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	dwmw2@...radead.org, Shem Multinymous <multinymous@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [Kernel-discuss] Re: [PATCH 3/7] [RFC] Battery monitoring class

On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 09:51:12PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> > Let's name attributes with mWh units as {min_,max_,design_,}energy,
> > and attributes with mAh units as {min_,max_,design_,}charge.
> 
> [...]
> 
> > * Yup, I've read last discussion regarding batteries, and I've seen
> >   objections against "charge" term, quoting Shem Multinymous:
> > 
> >   "And, for the reasons I explained earlier, I strongly suggest not using
> >   the term "charge" except when referring to the action of charging.
> >   Hence:
> >   s/charge_rate/rate/;  s/charge/capacity/"
> > 
> >   But lets think about it once again? We'll make things much cleaner
> >   if we'll drop "capacity" at all.
> 
> I stand with Shem on this one.  The people behind the SBS specification
> seems to agree... that specification is aimed at *engineers* and still
> avoids the obvious trap of using "charge" due to its high potential for
> confusion.
> 
> I don't even want to know how much of a mess the people writing applets
> woudl make of it...

:-(

Okay, term "charge" is out of scope, I guess. But can we use "capacity"
for xAh, and "energy" for xWh? I just trying to separate these terms
somehow, and avoid "_units" stuff.

> 
> > > That said, you may need to use uWh and uAh instead of mAh and mWh, though.
> > 
> > Not sure. Is there any existing chip that can report uAh/uWh? That is
> > great precision.
> 
> The way things are going, it should be feasible for small embedded systems
> quite soon.  Refer to the previous thread.

I see... is it also applicable to currents and voltages? I.e. should we
use uA and uV from the start?

-- 
Anton Vorontsov
email: cbou@...l.ru
backup email: ya-cbou@...dex.ru
irc://irc.freenode.org/bd2
-
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/