Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 29 Jul 2006 12:48:51 +0300 | From | "Shem Multinymous" <> | Subject | Re: Generic battery interface |
| |
On 7/29/06, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote: > On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 01:10:40 +0300, Shem Multinymous said: > > On 7/28/06, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote: > > > Is there a reliable (or hack-worthy) way for the kernel to determine how > > > often the values are re-posted by the hardware? > > > > That's hardware-specific. Some drivers can know, others may just > > assume 1sec or 0.1sec or whatever. > > That smells suspiciously like "We need an API for the hardware-specific > bits f code to pass the generic bits a value for this..." (and the > hardware-specific part can either ask the battery, or return a > hard-coded "10 seconds" that somebody measured, or whatever)....
I don't think "update frequency" is a good abstraction. The hardware's update may not be variable and irrregular (e.g., event-based), and there's there's an issue of phase sync to avoid unnecessary latency.
The lazy polling approach I described in my last post to Vojtech ("block until there's a new readout or N milliseconds have passed, whichever is later") looks like a more general, accurate and efficient interface.
Shem - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |