[ltp] Re: Generic battery interface

[Matthew Garrett]

On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 05:39:06PM +0300, Shem Multinymous wrote:

> Can we really assume there's one driver providing all battery-related
> attributes?

Hmm. That's a good point.

> So, if we insist on a standard battery device class name, how do we
> cope with multiple sources of information and control functions?

Ignoring the multiple sources of information bit for the moment, we need 
to figure out the correct method of event notification anyway. There's a 
long-term plan to get rid of /proc/acpi, so acpi notifications need to 
be more more generic in any case.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org