Rafael J. Wysocki пишет:
On Sunday 04 October 2009, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
Hi Rafael,
Alex,
This is not my rule, it was/is the rule of power device class. If you do not agree to it, please change
appropriate documentation.
I think we're talking about two different things. One thing is that we
shouldn't put any _arbitrary_ interpretation rules into the kernel, which I
agree with. The other one is that if there's a _known_ _broken_ hardware
and one possible way of handling it is to add a quirk into the kernel, we
should at least consider doing that.
In my opinion adding a quirk for a broken hardware is not equivalent to
"inferring not available properties using some heuristics or mathematical
model", if that's what you're referring to.
No, this is not a clear "bug" and not a clear "fix". Please read my reply to Miguel.
That said, the patch should not change the _default_ code in order to handle
the quirky hardware correctly. IMO, the quirky hardware should be recognized
It will change behaviour of at least Samsung notebooks, for which I personally saw the
charge_now/full_charge being greater then design_charge.
during initialisation, if possible, and later handled in a special way. If
it's not possible to detect the broken hardware reliably, I agree that there's
nothing we can do about that in the kernel.
I am still not sure if we have a broken hardware here.
Regards,
Alex.
--
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
