Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 27 Jul 2006 15:44:52 +0100 | From | Matthew Garrett <> | Subject | Re: Generic battery interface |
| |
On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 05:39:06PM +0300, Shem Multinymous wrote:
> Can we really assume there's one driver providing all battery-related > attributes?
Hmm. That's a good point.
> So, if we insist on a standard battery device class name, how do we > cope with multiple sources of information and control functions?
Ignoring the multiple sources of information bit for the moment, we need to figure out the correct method of event notification anyway. There's a long-term plan to get rid of /proc/acpi, so acpi notifications need to be more more generic in any case.
-- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org - 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/
| |