[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20ADAB092842284E95860F279283C5642ED9B294@BGSMSX104.gar.corp.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 03:41:04 +0000
From: "Tc, Jenny" <jenny.tc@...el.com>
To: "jonghwa3.lee@...sung.com" <jonghwa3.lee@...sung.com>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"sre@...nel.org" <sre@...nel.org>,
"dbaryshkov@...il.com" <dbaryshkov@...il.com>,
"dwmw2@...radead.org" <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
"anton@...msg.org" <anton@...msg.org>,
"pavel@....cz" <pavel@....cz>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/3] power: core: Add generic interface to get battery
specification.
>
> >> +ATOMIC_NOTIFIER_HEAD(psy_battery_info_notifier);
> >
> > Isn't it good to reuse the existing power_supply_notifier for this?
> >
> >> +enum battery_info_notifier_events {
> >> + PSY_BATT_INFO_REGISTERED,
> >> + PSY_BATT_INFO_UNREGISTERED,
> >> +};
> >
> > If we use the power_supply_notifier, then this can be moved to
> > enum power_supply_notifier_events
> >
>
>
> It doesn't use power_supply_notifier, rather than it uses newly introduced
> notifier for battery information. Intention of making of new notifier block here
> is to extinguish event from power_supply_changed which might be noisy for
> battery information consumer. However, If it looks wasteful code, it's not a big
> deal to use existed power_supply_notifier.
Using the power_supply_notifier helps to get all power supply notifications
(power_supply_chnaged, battery info register/unregister, ..) using a single notifier. The
consumers can ignore the unwanted events.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists