linux-kernel - Re: [POWER] battery calibration parameters from sysfs

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: <20091204104930.GA28625@sirena.org.uk>
Date:	Fri, 4 Dec 2009 10:49:31 +0000
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...ricsson.com>
Cc:	cbou@....ru, dwmw2@...radead.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-embedded@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [POWER] battery calibration parameters from sysfs

On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 11:42:22AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:

> Most devices of this kind does not need the stuff we're doing so we're
> the odd bird here. Other batteries are "smart" (contain factory
> calibration inside of them) or get calibration from some BIOS or such.

> In our code we have a number of (x,y) pair tables like this:

> /* Vbat mV to Battery capacity % */
> struct voltage_vs_capacity {
> 	int voltage;
> 	int capacity;
> };

Isn't the standard thing here to handle this voltage to capacity mapping
in userspace if we're just extrapolating from experimental results?
Even with the "smart" batteries in PCs there are some accuracy concerns
and obviously the performance of the battery will change over time.
--
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/