20.05.2014 13:32 пользователь "Landry Breuil" <lan...@rhaalovely.net>
написал:
>
> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 01:19:44PM +0400, Vadim Zhukov wrote:
> > 17.05.2014 20:32 ???????????????????????? "Fabian Raetz" <
fabian.ra...@gmail.com>
> > ??????????????:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > i want to expose "capacity" (full capacity design)
> > > as a sensor like the rest.
> > >
> > > This sensor will be used in an upcoming diff to upower to
> > > expose "energy-full-design" and "capacity" properties if
> > > this patch gets merged.
> > >
> > > Both patches together will fix wrong notifications about
> > > broken batteries in KDE4.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Fabian
> > >
> > >
> > > Index: acpidev.h
> > > ===================================================================
> > > RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/dev/acpi/acpidev.h,v
> > > retrieving revision 1.33
> > > diff -u -p -r1.33 acpidev.h
> > > --- acpidev.h 13 Jul 2012 10:37:40 -0000 1.33
> > > +++ acpidev.h 17 May 2014 15:51:29 -0000
> > > @@ -278,7 +278,7 @@ struct acpibat_softc {
> > > struct acpibat_bst sc_bst;
> > > volatile int sc_bat_present;
> > >
> > > - struct ksensor sc_sens[8];
> > > + struct ksensor sc_sens[9];
> > > struct ksensordev sc_sensdev;
> > > };
> > >
> > > Index: acpibat.c
> > > ===================================================================
> > > RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/dev/acpi/acpibat.c,v
> > > retrieving revision 1.59
> > > diff -u -p -r1.59 acpibat.c
> > > --- acpibat.c 16 Oct 2011 11:59:21 -0000 1.59
> > > +++ acpibat.c 17 May 2014 15:51:29 -0000
> > > @@ -163,6 +163,12 @@ acpibat_monitor(struct acpibat_softc *sc
> > > sensor_attach(&sc->sc_sensdev, &sc->sc_sens[7]);
> > > sc->sc_sens[7].value = sc->sc_bst.bst_voltage * 1000;
> > >
> > > + strlcpy(sc->sc_sens[8].desc, "capacity",
> > > + sizeof(sc->sc_sens[8].desc));
> > > + sc->sc_sens[8].type = type;
> > > + sensor_attach(&sc->sc_sensdev, &sc->sc_sens[8]);
> > > + sc->sc_sens[8].value = sc->sc_bif.bif_capacity * 1000;
> >
> > It looks like a missing check for BIF_UNKNOWN, like in
acpibat_refresh().
> > Otherwise okay zhuk@.
>
> If you look at the surrounding code in acpibat_monitor(), none of the
> assignments check for *UNKNOWN values, so i dont think we should bother.
>
> I agree that 'design capacity' might be better than "capacity" too..
And this looks like a (small) bug. Maybe we should just put
SENSOR_S_UNKNOWN in acpibat_attach() everywhere, and just rely on
acpibat_refresh() to do the actual job? That's for a separate commit, of
course.
> todd, can you put this in snaps so that we know if there's some fallout
> ?
Why not just commit this? :)
