From owner-freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 16 08:21:58 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97F1916A4CE for ; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 08:21:58 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ylpvm15.prodigy.net (ylpvm15-ext.prodigy.net [207.115.57.46]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B64843D31 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 08:21:58 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from nate@root.org) Received: from [10.0.5.50] (adsl-64-171-186-185.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [64.171.186.185])iAG8M5re025478; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 03:22:05 -0500 Message-ID: <4199B8A1.6080205@root.org> Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 00:21:53 -0800 From: Nate Lawson User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (X11/20040901) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "M. Warner Losh" References: <20041115.231816.133541642.imp@bsdimp.com> <4199A260.3020001@root.org> <20041116.001446.66168349.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <20041116.001446.66168349.imp@bsdimp.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: acpi@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Minor improvement to acpiconf X-BeenThere: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: ACPI and power management development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 08:21:58 -0000 M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: <4199A260.3020001@root.org> > Nate Lawson writes: > > : > acpifd = open(ACPIDEV, O_RDWR); > : > if (acpifd == -1){ > : > @@ -117,6 +117,17 @@ > : > printf("Type:\t\t\t%s\n", battio.bif.type); > : > printf("OEM info:\t\t%s\n", battio.bif.oeminfo); > : > > : > + if (ioctl(acpifd, ACPIIO_CMBAT_GET_BST, &battio) == -1) > : > + err(EX_IOERR, "get battery info (%d) failed", num); > : > + > : > + if (battio.bst.state != ACPI_BATT_STAT_NOT_PRESENT) { > : > : Prefer positive logic. > > Most common path first is generally the logic I prefer... I thought there was a PRESENT define but apparently not. > : > + printf("State:\t\t\tPresent\n"); > : > + printf("Rate:\t\t\t%d mWh\n", battio.bst.rate); > : > + printf("Cap:\t\t\t%d mWh\n", battio.bst.cap); > : > + printf("Volt:\t\t\t%d mV\n", battio.bst.volt); > : > : I agree with these except for a slight misgiving about "cap". That > : information is already exported via sysctl and if we have to export the > : same thing different ways, I think the interface is not optimal. > > Capacity isnt' exported via a sysctl. 'life' is, but it doesn't > export anything more than a percentage. Life is derived from cap, but like I said above, I'm ok with it. > : In general, I'd like to move away from acpi-specific ioctls. There > : should be just one way of getting the battery info and it shouldn't > : refer to the underlying method names (_BST and _BIF) like the current > : ones do. Mike made a good case for eliminating the dev_t entirely since > : there is never any IO for acpi, it's all control traffic. Sysctl seems > : more appropriate for that than creating a device that will never see a > : read, write, or other access other than ioctl(). But this is a > : complaint about the current design and the half-ioctl, half-sysctl > : implementation. > > I'm not entirely sure I agree with a device needing read/write methods > to be legit. Especially after I saw sysctl abused for the devinfo > interface, which likely should have been read instead :-)... Looking in /dev, nearly all devices support IO. Only the .ctl or .init/.lock devices are questionable. I think it makes sense for this to be a criterion for using a dev_t. -Nate