Re: [PATCH] battery: Fix charge_now returned by broken batteries

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Sunday 04 October 2009, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
> Hi Rafael,

Alex,

> This is not my rule, it was/is the rule of power device class. If you do not agree to it, please change
> appropriate documentation.

I think we're talking about two different things.  One thing is that we
shouldn't put any _arbitrary_ interpretation rules into the kernel, which I
agree with.  The other one is that if there's a _known_ _broken_ hardware
and one possible way of handling it is to add a quirk into the kernel, we
should at least consider doing that.

In my opinion adding a quirk for a broken hardware is not equivalent to
"inferring not available properties using some heuristics or mathematical
model", if that's what you're referring to.

That said, the patch should not change the _default_ code in order to handle
the quirky hardware correctly.  IMO, the quirky hardware should be recognized
during initialisation, if possible, and later handled in a special way.  If
it's not possible to detect the broken hardware reliably, I agree that there's
nothing we can do about that in the kernel.

Thanks,
Rafael
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/