linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] Controlling the ThinkPad battery charger

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: <20110509135612.GA1873@srcf.ucam.org>
Date:	Mon, 9 May 2011 14:56:12 +0100
From:	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
To:	Andrew Lutomirski <luto@....edu>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ibm-acpi-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
	Anton Vorontsov <cbou@...l.ru>,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Controlling the ThinkPad battery charger

On Sun, May 08, 2011 at 08:35:32AM -0400, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:

> I like option 2 better, since it means that a userspace tool (like
> GNOME) could learn how to operate a battery charge controller once and
> then other laptops and devices could reuse the same interface.  The
> problem is that the ACPI battery driver can't see the charge control.
> So either it would need a hook to allow per-vendor control like this
> or the power_supply class would need to recognize separate charge
> controllers.

I agree that this is preferable. One option would be to just use smapi 
and provide a hook to detach the ACPI driver, but that would potentially 
mean a certain amount of code duplication.

-- 
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/