On Sunday 04 October 2009, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote: > Hi Miguel, Hi Alex, > I am going to reject your patch on the basis, that the battery driver should report only > information it gained from battery hardware, not interpret it in any way. > As your patch fall into "interpret" category, it does not belong in the kernel and battery > driver in particular. You may suggest it to any/all user space battery monitoring applications, > this is the place for "interpretations". Well, we do quirks for PCI devices, suspend quirks etc. in the kernel, so I'm not really sure we should use the "no interpretation" as a general rule. IMO, if there's a known broken system needing a quirk, it may just be more reasonable to put the quirk into the kernel than to put it into every single user application out there. In this particular case we have an evidently quirky hardware (or BIOS) and it's not a fundamentally wrong idea to try to address that problem in the kernel. Thanks, Rafael -- 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
