On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 11:25:40AM -0500, Kyle McMartin wrote:
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 09:08:02PM -0500, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> On 02/16/2008 06:53 AM, drago01 wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I tested the kernel-2.6.24.2-3.fc8 (downloaded the x86_64 build
> > directly) on my laptop.
> > Hal detects two batteries because it looks in sysfs and in procfs for
> > the battery info. I tryed to apply the patch from the hal-list which
> > causes hal to not look in procfs but in sysfs only when the sysfs info
> > is available. The problem with this is that the info in sysfs is broken
> > (capcity 3.0 Wh etc while the procfs info is correct 45Wh).
> > I would suggest to set CONFIG_ACPI_SYSFS_POWER to n because the procfs
> > info already provides this data for userspace and does not report broken
> > values.
> >
>
> We should be enabling either one or the other, not both.
>
my logic was people could be running rawhide kernels on old userspace
(i do this, for instance.)
actually that's a really good point, given how bad rawhide has been lately
at being installable. I do the same thing btw (f9 kernel on f8) because of
this, and hadn't picked up on this breakage because my laptop runs f8 kernel.
> For Fedora 9 maybe it should be the sysfs interface if it
works.
i don't really see a harm in having both.
I imagine that eventually someone upstream will make the decision a no-brainer
by removing the proc stuff. Not shipping it does mean that nothing new will
start depending on it. (Unlikely I know, but still...)
> For 8 it should be only procfs to be backwards compatible.
I'll do that.
agreed, don't want to tempt fate on f8...
ACK.
Dave
--
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk