On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 12:56 AM, Alexey Starikovskiy <astarikovskiy@xxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. I have no idea about batteries, but jumping from 5950 mAh to 7650 mAh within one second does not seem non-broken to me. ;) > > 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
