Disable CONFIG_ACPI_SYSFS_POWER?

[Dave Jones]

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