Hi, On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 07:11:53PM +0300, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote: > Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >On Thursday, 8 of November 2007, Johannes Weiner wrote: > >>Hi, > >> > >>is there any reason, why acpi_battery_get_property() should call > >>acpi_battery_update() at all? > > > >Alex? > If someone wants to read stale values, he could comment out > acpi_battery_update. Please help me to understand: When the battery is plugged in, the acpi_battery_notify() is called, which in turn calls acpi_battery_update(). The latter ensures that the sysfs files are created if not yet present. When the battery is removed, acpi_battery_notify is called, which in turn calls acpi_battery_update(). The latter ensures that the sysfs files are removed if present. During runtime - as far as I understood - no sysfs files have to be created/removed but the saved battery state info becomes stale. So, would it be enough to call acpi_battery_get_state() in acpi_battery_get_property() instead of acpi_battery_update()? If acpi_battery_get_state() does what I think it does, this would ensure that the battery state is reread and updated when acpi_battery_get_property() is called. Hit me. Hannes - 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
