From owner-freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 10 09:47:16 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org 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 E543E16A41F; Tue, 10 Jan 2006 09:47:16 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ducrot@poupinou.org) Received: from poup.poupinou.org (poup.poupinou.org [195.101.94.96]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F96A43D46; Tue, 10 Jan 2006 09:47:16 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ducrot@poupinou.org) Received: from ducrot by poup.poupinou.org with local (Exim) id 1EwG5w-0008O5-00; Tue, 10 Jan 2006 10:47:12 +0100 Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 10:47:12 +0100 To: Ariff Abdullah Message-ID: <20060110094712.GB32102@poupinou.org> References: <200512291412.19476.peter@wemm.org> <20060103155509.GE13887@poupinou.org> <20060103185047.GH13887@poupinou.org> <20060104161842.GK13887@poupinou.org> <20060105005441.029835c1.ariff@FreeBSD.org> <43C2C6AB.5060605@root.org> <20060110050828.100b026a.ariff@FreeBSD.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060110050828.100b026a.ariff@FreeBSD.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i From: Bruno Ducrot Cc: freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.org, lists@stringsutils.com, freebsd-amd64@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: No APM yet for AMD? X-BeenThere: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: ACPI and power management development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 09:47:17 -0000 On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 05:08:28AM +0800, Ariff Abdullah wrote: > On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 12:25:15 -0800 > Nate Lawson wrote: > > > > I looked at the patch but had a hard time figuring out what the > > functional changes are. Most of the changes are just using a > > convenience pointer to see the struct members and some style > > misformatting of the printf arguments. (The second line of > > indentation needs to be 4 spaces indented, see style(9)). > > > > What part of this patch is just the functional change? > > > There are no functional changes at all. It simply trying to be more > verbose (and forgiving), in case the ioctl did not return advance > information (such as remaining time, so on) which I believe few ACPI > bioses incapable of providing such info. In this case, it trying to > calculate the percentage of remining battery capacity based on Last > Full Capacity, which current acpiconf ignore. > > # acpiconf -i 0 (without patch) > Design capacity: 6000 mAh > Last full capacity: 4000 mAh > Technology: secondary (rechargeable) > Design voltage: 14800 mV > Capacity (warn): 207 mAh > Capacity (low): 125 mAh > Low/warn granularity: 10 mAh > Warn/full granularity: 25 mAh > Model number: JM-6 > Serial number: 0046713127 > Type: LION > OEM info: Hewlett-Packard > State: not present > ^^^^^^^^^^^ > Voltage: unknown > > # acpiconf -i 0 (patched) > Design capacity: 6000 mAh > Last full capacity: 4000 mAh > Technology: secondary (rechargeable) > Design voltage: 14800 mV > Capacity (warn): 207 mAh > Capacity (low): 125 mAh > Low/warn granularity: 10 mAh > Warn/full granularity: 25 mAh > Model number: JM-6 > Serial number: 0046713127 > Type: LION > OEM info: Hewlett-Packard > State: high > ^^^^ > Present rate: unknown > Remaining capacity: 100% > ^^^^ Well, I would much prefer the remaining capacity still being unknown in that case then. -- Bruno Ducrot -- Which is worse: ignorance or apathy? -- Don't know. Don't care.