[ltp] Re: Generic battery interface

[Shem Multinymous]

On 7/28/06, Brown, Len <len.brown@intel.com> wrote:
> good for shell scripts, not clear it is better for C programs
> that have to open a bunch of files by name.

> Wonderful, but isn't the key here how simple it is for HAL
> or X to understand and use the kernel API rather than the
> developers of the kernel driver that implements the API?

For a C program it's just open()+fscanf()+close(). You can easily wrap
it up in a 10-line function, and that's probably what HAL and friends
are already doing.

Anyway, I was just pointing out a practical advantage. The decision
about sysfs's textual interface has already been taken, for better or
worse, and I don't think it's good to invent a totally new interface
unless there's a strong technical reason why the sysfs model is
inappropriate for this task.

  Shem