Re: acpiac(4) manual page and sensorsd(8)
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 10:24:02PM -0700, Robert Connolly wrote:
> Hello.
>
> The acpiac(4) man page mentions that the AC power source status can be
> monitored by sensorsd(8), but sensorsd(8) does not monitor this sensor as
> far as I know. apmd(8) does however.
>
> Could the acpiac(4) man page be reworded to reflect this?
>
> Thanks
>
hi. i asked mark kettenis about this. his reply:
This is incorrect. The acpiac(4) driver provides a sensor
that can be monitored by sensorsd(8).
Now apmd(8) monitors the power status as well, but this is
not done through the sensors framework.
so it appears acpiac(4) is correct.
jmc
acpiac(4) manual page and sensorsd(8)
Hello. The acpiac(4) man page mentions that the AC power source status can be monitored by sensorsd(8), but sensorsd(8) does not monitor this sensor as far as I know. apmd(8) does however. Could the acpiac(4) man page be reworded to reflect this? Thanks
Re: acpiac
The spec dictates a blanket _STA for all devices. So we have to call
just to make the spec happy. The fact that we don't do anything with
it doesn't really matter :-)
On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 11:52:24AM +0100, giovanni wrote:
> On Nov 20, 2007 5:40 PM, Marco Peereboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > yeah the spec tells us to. Why?
>
> maybe I'm wrong in what I'm saying...
>
> device AC could have _PSR but not _STA.
>
> when _STA exists it gives us this information:
>
> 0xf -> AC adapter exists
> 0x0 -> AC adapter does not exists
>
> because this information it is not used later, I really do not
> understand why _STA it is evaluated.
> some hints?
>
> tnx
>
> > On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 11:52:33AM +0100, giovanni wrote:
> > > hello,
> > >
> > > any reason for evaluating _STA before _PSR for getting AC status?
> > >
> > > if (aml_evalname(sc->sc_acpi, sc->sc_devnode, "_STA", 0, NULL,
> > > NULL)) {
> > > dnprintf(10, "%s: no _STA\n",
> > > DEVNAME(sc));
> > > }
> > >
> > > if (aml_evalname(sc->sc_acpi, sc->sc_devnode, "_PSR", 0, NULL,
> > > &res)) {
> > > dnprintf(10, "%s: no _PSR\n",
> > > DEVNAME(sc));
> > > return (1);
> > >
> > > --
> > > see ya,
> > > giovanni
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> see ya,
> giovanni
Re: acpiac
On Nov 20, 2007 5:40 PM, Marco Peereboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> yeah the spec tells us to. Why?
maybe I'm wrong in what I'm saying...
device AC could have _PSR but not _STA.
when _STA exists it gives us this information:
0xf -> AC adapter exists
0x0 -> AC adapter does not exists
because this information it is not used later, I really do not
understand why _STA it is evaluated.
some hints?
tnx
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 11:52:33AM +0100, giovanni wrote:
> > hello,
> >
> > any reason for evaluating _STA before _PSR for getting AC status?
> >
> > if (aml_evalname(sc->sc_acpi, sc->sc_devnode, "_STA", 0, NULL,
> > NULL)) {
> > dnprintf(10, "%s: no _STA\n",
> > DEVNAME(sc));
> > }
> >
> > if (aml_evalname(sc->sc_acpi, sc->sc_devnode, "_PSR", 0, NULL,
> > &res)) {
> > dnprintf(10, "%s: no _PSR\n",
> > DEVNAME(sc));
> > return (1);
> >
> > --
> > see ya,
> > giovanni
> >
>
--
see ya,
giovanni
Re: acpiac
yeah the spec tells us to. Why?
On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 11:52:33AM +0100, giovanni wrote:
> hello,
>
> any reason for evaluating _STA before _PSR for getting AC status?
>
> if (aml_evalname(sc->sc_acpi, sc->sc_devnode, "_STA", 0, NULL, NULL))
> {
> dnprintf(10, "%s: no _STA\n",
> DEVNAME(sc));
> }
>
> if (aml_evalname(sc->sc_acpi, sc->sc_devnode, "_PSR", 0, NULL, &res))
> {
> dnprintf(10, "%s: no _PSR\n",
> DEVNAME(sc));
> return (1);
>
> --
> see ya,
> giovanni
acpiac
hello,
any reason for evaluating _STA before _PSR for getting AC status?
if (aml_evalname(sc->sc_acpi, sc->sc_devnode, "_STA", 0, NULL, NULL)) {
dnprintf(10, "%s: no _STA\n",
DEVNAME(sc));
}
if (aml_evalname(sc->sc_acpi, sc->sc_devnode, "_PSR", 0, NULL, &res)) {
dnprintf(10, "%s: no _PSR\n",
DEVNAME(sc));
return (1);
--
see ya,
giovanni
