On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 11:25:40AM -0500, Kyle McMartin wrote: > 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.) actually that's a really good point, given how bad rawhide has been lately at being installable. I do the same thing btw (f9 kernel on f8) because of this, and hadn't picked up on this breakage because my laptop runs f8 kernel. > > For Fedora 9 maybe it should be the sysfs interface if it works. > i don't really see a harm in having both. I imagine that eventually someone upstream will make the decision a no-brainer by removing the proc stuff. Not shipping it does mean that nothing new will start depending on it. (Unlikely I know, but still...) > > For 8 it should be only procfs to be backwards compatible. I'll do that. > agreed, don't want to tempt fate on f8... ACK. Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk _______________________________________________ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
