greg wrote: > On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 09:33:06AM -0500, Paul Fox wrote: > > clearly we don't _want_ to have two battery drivers for the same > > battery. but neither driver by itself currently fills all of our > > current needs, and, given our development schedule, building both > > and having the UI layers ignore one of them seemed like the most > > expedient, temporary, solution. we'll have to look at this a > > different way. > > What specifically do you need done with your driver to get it fixed? > Perhaps if you ask for help with that, you might be able to get it done > for you :) well, this probably isn't the right list. but you asked. :-) the XO-1 didn't use ACPI under linux. it did have some minimal DSDT support in openfirmware to support Windows [1], in the form of simple battery reporting. for the XO-1.5, the decision was made to fully support ACPI, so among other things, yours truly has been enhancing our DSDT support to support the lid, the ebook switch, etc, and trying to get the EC events tied in. one of the things still on the list is to make the battery support more correct -- someone tried powertop on a 1.5 XO said it reported 35W being used. i don't think that sounds right. :-) so work needs to be done there. if there are any DSDT experts in the house, i'd love to hear from you, if only for fielding occasional questions. the CONFIG_POWER_SUPPLY-based battery driver we used on XO-1 still works fine on XO-1.5, and correctly reports our (accurate) charge counter, and our (accurate) capacity level. we need the charge_counter value in particular, as it's used in all of our power analysis scripts. i confess i'm hazy on the details right now, but the way our charge counting works isn't directly translatable to the values that ACPI provides -- it's a frame of reference issue, having to do with where or when "full" is assumed to be. richard smith and i have gone through it in the past -- i just can't remember right now. eventually we need to figure out how to get the old values to come out of the new driver, but this is why i was hoping i could get udev to ignore the device -- we need it for some specific purposes, but don't necessarily want most "normal" code to have to deal with it. i'd actually be tempted to simply use the old battery driver (i.e., turn off CONFIG_ACPI_BATTERY), but it would of course be nice if things like powertop and g-p-m worked. (g-p-m sees the old driver, but tries to compute the capacity value from values it doesn't provide, ignoring the capacity value we do provide.) paul [1] which, i would like to say for the record, contrary to almost every news report you'll see, has almost _never_ been run in an XO laptop deployment, and has _never_ been deployed directly by OLPC. not that we're sensitive about this, or anything. =--------------------- paul fox, pgf@xxxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-hotplug" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
