Julian Andres Klode <jak@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> +TPACPI_HANDLE(battery, root, "\\_SB.PCI0.LPC.EC.HKEY",
> + "\\_SB.PCI0.LPCB.EC.HKEY", /* X121e, T430u */
> + "\\_SB.PCI0.LPCB.H_EC.HKEY", /* L430 */
> + "\\_SB.PCI0.LPCB.EC0.HKEY", /* Edge/S series */
> + );
> +
Isn't this just the full patch to the existing "hkey_handle" for those
models? Why not just use that handle, like e.g the rfkill driver does?
Supported models could probably be autodetected by checking whether the
methods exist?
> +static struct attribute_group bat##_BAT##_attribute_group = { \
> + .name = "BAT" #_BAT, \
> + .attrs = bat##_BAT##_attributes \
> +};
Are these names guaranteed to match the ACPI battery device(s)?
> +DEFINE_BATTERY(0);
> +DEFINE_BATTERY(1);
Are there always two batteries?
Bjørn
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe platform-driver-x86" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
