On 7/29/06, Valdis.Kletnieks@xxxxxx <Valdis.Kletnieks@xxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 01:10:40 +0300, Shem Multinymous said:
> On 7/28/06, Valdis.Kletnieks@xxxxxx <Valdis.Kletnieks@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > Is there a reliable (or hack-worthy) way for the kernel to determine how
> > often the values are re-posted by the hardware?
>
> That's hardware-specific. Some drivers can know, others may just
> assume 1sec or 0.1sec or whatever.
That smells suspiciously like "We need an API for the hardware-specific
bits f code to pass the generic bits a value for this..." (and the
hardware-specific part can either ask the battery, or return a
hard-coded "10 seconds" that somebody measured, or whatever)....
I don't think "update frequency" is a good abstraction. The hardware's
update may not be variable and irrregular (e.g., event-based), and
there's there's an issue of phase sync to avoid unnecessary latency.
The lazy polling approach I described in my last post to Vojtech
("block until there's a new readout or N milliseconds have passed,
whichever is later") looks like a more general, accurate and efficient
interface.
Shem
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
