[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200910050043.56667.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 00:43:56 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Alexey Starikovskiy <astarikovskiy@...e.de>
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
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.
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
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.
Thanks,
Rafael
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists