On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 01:10:40 +0300, Shem Multinymous said: > On 7/28/06, [email protected] <[email protected]> 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)....
Attachment:
pgpehwGmjNC2C.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Generic battery interface
- From: "Shem Multinymous" <[email protected]>
- Re: Generic battery interface
- References:
- RE: Generic battery interface
- From: "Brown, Len" <[email protected]>
- Re: Generic battery interface
- From: "Shem Multinymous" <[email protected]>
- Re: Generic battery interface
- From: Vojtech Pavlik <[email protected]>
- Re: Generic battery interface
- From: "Shem Multinymous" <[email protected]>
- Re: Generic battery interface
- From: Vojtech Pavlik <[email protected]>
- Re: Generic battery interface
- From: Pavel Machek <[email protected]>
- Re: Generic battery interface
- From: Vojtech Pavlik <[email protected]>
- Re: Generic battery interface
- From: "Shem Multinymous" <[email protected]>
- Re: Generic battery interface
- From: [email protected]
- Re: Generic battery interface
- From: "Shem Multinymous" <[email protected]>
- RE: Generic battery interface
- Prev by Date: Re: [patch 5/5] Add the -fstack-protector option to the CFLAGS
- Next by Date: Re: [RFC] /dev/itimer
- Previous by thread: Re: Generic battery interface
- Next by thread: Re: Generic battery interface
- Index(es):
 |