On Sunday 04 October 2009, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:No, this is not a clear "bug" and not a clear "fix". Please read my reply to Miguel.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.
It will change behaviour of at least Samsung notebooks, for which I personally saw the charge_now/full_charge being greater then design_charge.
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. IfI am still not sure if we have a broken hardware here.
it's not possible to detect the broken hardware reliably, I agree that there's
nothing we can do about that in the kernel.