On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 09:08:02PM -0500, Chuck Ebbert wrote: > On 02/16/2008 06:53 AM, drago01 wrote: > > Hi, > > I tested the kernel-2.6.24.2-3.fc8 (downloaded the x86_64 build > > directly) on my laptop. > > Hal detects two batteries because it looks in sysfs and in procfs for > > the battery info. I tryed to apply the patch from the hal-list which > > causes hal to not look in procfs but in sysfs only when the sysfs info > > is available. The problem with this is that the info in sysfs is broken > > (capcity 3.0 Wh etc while the procfs info is correct 45Wh). > > I would suggest to set CONFIG_ACPI_SYSFS_POWER to n because the procfs > > info already provides this data for userspace and does not report broken > > values. > > > > We should be enabling either one or the other, not both. > my logic was people could be running rawhide kernels on old userspace (i do this, for instance.) > For Fedora 9 maybe it should be the sysfs interface if it works. > i don't really see a harm in having both. > For 8 it should be only procfs to be backwards compatible. I'll do that. > agreed, don't want to tempt fate on f8... cheers, kyle > _______________________________________________ > Fedora-kernel-list mailing list > Fedora-kernel-list@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list > _______________________________________________ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
