Julian Andres Klode <jak@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> +TPACPI_HANDLE(battery, root, "\\_SB.PCI0.LPC.EC.HKEY",
> + "\\_SB.PCI0.LPCB.EC.HKEY", /* X121e, T430u */
> + "\\_SB.PCI0.LPCB.H_EC.HKEY", /* L430 */
> + "\\_SB.PCI0.LPCB.EC0.HKEY", /* Edge/S series */
> + );
> +
Isn't this just the full patch to the existing "hkey_handle" for those
models? Why not just use that handle, like e.g the rfkill driver does?
Supported models could probably be autodetected by checking whether the
methods exist?
> +static struct attribute_group bat##_BAT##_attribute_group = { \
> + .name = "BAT" #_BAT, \
> + .attrs = bat##_BAT##_attributes \
> +};
Are these names guaranteed to match the ACPI battery device(s)?
> +DEFINE_BATTERY(0);
> +DEFINE_BATTERY(1);
Are there always two batteries?
Bjørn
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
November Webinars for C, C++, Fortran Developers
Accelerate application performance with scalable programming models. Explore
techniques for threading, error checking, porting, and tuning. Get the most
from the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60136231&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
ibm-acpi-devel mailing list
ibm-acpi-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ibm-acpi-devel
