From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sun Jul 16  1:55:11 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (beachbum.freebsd.dk [212.242.32.0])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 0F0B537B8E6; Sun, 16 Jul 2000 01:55:08 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by critter.freebsd.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA01886;
	Sun, 16 Jul 2000 10:55:03 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk)
To: nsayer@FreeBSD.ORG
Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: sysctl interface for apm? 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 15 Jul 2000 23:25:04 PDT."
             <200007160625.XAA92886@freefall.freebsd.org> 
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 10:55:03 +0200
Message-ID: <1884.963737703@critter.freebsd.dk>
From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk>
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

In message <200007160625.XAA92886@freefall.freebsd.org>, nsayer@FreeBSD.ORG wri
tes:

>So what does everyone think? Is it suitable to add a read only
>sysctl 'machdep.apm_powerstate' that reports either AC, nn%,
>or N/A ? Or should the format be numeric (999 = AC, <=100 = battery %,
>-1 = N/A)? Or should we not bother? :-)

yes it is suitable.

--
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD coreteam member | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message