Disable CONFIG_ACPI_SYSFS_POWER?
Dave Jones
davej at redhat.com
Mon Feb 18 16:48:20 UTC 2008
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 11:25:40AM -0500, Kyle McMartin wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 09:08:02PM -0500, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> > On 02/16/2008 06:53 AM, drago01 wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > I tested the kernel-2.6.24.2-3.fc8 (downloaded the x86_64 build
> > > directly) on my laptop.
> > > Hal detects two batteries because it looks in sysfs and in procfs for
> > > the battery info. I tryed to apply the patch from the hal-list which
> > > causes hal to not look in procfs but in sysfs only when the sysfs info
> > > is available. The problem with this is that the info in sysfs is broken
> > > (capcity 3.0 Wh etc while the procfs info is correct 45Wh).
> > > I would suggest to set CONFIG_ACPI_SYSFS_POWER to n because the procfs
> > > info already provides this data for userspace and does not report broken
> > > values.
> > >
> >
> > We should be enabling either one or the other, not both.
> >
>
> my logic was people could be running rawhide kernels on old userspace
> (i do this, for instance.)
actually that's a really good point, given how bad rawhide has been lately
at being installable. I do the same thing btw (f9 kernel on f8) because of
this, and hadn't picked up on this breakage because my laptop runs f8 kernel.
> > For Fedora 9 maybe it should be the sysfs interface if it works.
> i don't really see a harm in having both.
I imagine that eventually someone upstream will make the decision a no-brainer
by removing the proc stuff. Not shipping it does mean that nothing new will
start depending on it. (Unlikely I know, but still...)
> > For 8 it should be only procfs to be backwards compatible. I'll do that.
> agreed, don't want to tempt fate on f8...
ACK.
Dave
--
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
More information about the Fedora-kernel-list
mailing list