acpi battery rework patch

[Nate Lawson]

Marcin Jessa wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 09:29:03 -0700
> Nate Lawson <nate at root.org> wrote:
>>Marcin Jessa wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 17:15:12 -0700
>>>Nate Lawson <nate at root.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Marcin, if your system reports a valid rate of use, we can calculate 
>>>>time.  If you're on AC power, there is no time available (since your 
>>>>batteries aren't discharging at any rate).  Try a previous 
>>>>kernel/acpi.ko to be certain what the behavior used to be.
>>>
>>And with a 7-current kernel, everything is the same except "time" is 
>>always -1 both on and off AC power?
>>
>>Please try this patch with 7-current and report its output both on and 
>>off power.  It prints out more debugging info each time the battery is read.
> 
> Test results:
> 
> Running on 6.0-BETA1 #4: Sat Jul 23 17:35:13 CEST 2005 
> - AC:
> hw.acpi.battery.life: 99
> hw.acpi.battery.time: -1
> hw.acpi.battery.state: 0
> 
> - Battery:
> hw.acpi.battery.life: 87
> hw.acpi.battery.time: 103
> hw.acpi.battery.state: 1

Completely fine.  Time should be -1 (unknown) while on AC power.  And 
state is "discharging" when on battery.

> Running on FreeBSD 7.0-CURRENT #5: Mon Jul 25 22:21:05 CEST 2005 without the patch
> - AC:
> hw.acpi.battery.life: 100
> hw.acpi.battery.time: -1
> hw.acpi.battery.state: 0
> 
> - Battery:
> hw.acpi.battery.life: 99
> hw.acpi.battery.time: 113
> hw.acpi.battery.state: 1

Um, this is exactly the same as above before my battery rework commit. 
I fail to see anything wrong with it.

> Running on FreeBSD 7.0-CURRENT #5: Mon Jul 25 22:21:05 CEST 2005 with the patch:

The patch should not change anything since it just adds printfs to help 
get more info in case you had some bug.

> - AC:
> hw.acpi.battery.life: 70
> hw.acpi.battery.time: -1
> hw.acpi.battery.state: 2

This is fine.  On AC power and state is charging.

> - Battery:
> hw.acpi.battery.life: 70
> hw.acpi.battery.time: 125
> hw.acpi.battery.state: 1

Time is valid and state is "discharging".

There is no bug here, this info is correct and matches the kernel 
behavior before my commit.  So what is the buggy behavior?

-- 
Nate