Add support for newer linux kernel power_supply API
AbandonedPublic

Authored by luc4 on May 18 2019, 2:09 PM.

Details

Summary

Newer kernel versions seem not to provide battery data in procfs. I added the implementation to read from the newer power supply class, while keeping the older implementation working.

Diff Detail

Repository
R106 KSysguard
Branch
batt
Lint
No Linters Available
Unit
No Unit Test Coverage
Build Status
Buildable 11927
Build 11945: arc lint + arc unit
luc4 created this revision.May 18 2019, 2:09 PM
Restricted Application added a project: Plasma. · View Herald TranscriptMay 18 2019, 2:09 PM
Restricted Application added a subscriber: plasma-devel. · View Herald Transcript
luc4 requested review of this revision.May 18 2019, 2:09 PM
luc4 retitled this revision from Add support for newer linux kernel power_supply API. Keep backward compatibility with older procfs API. to Add support for newer linux kernel power_supply API. Keep backwardcompatibility with older procfs API..May 18 2019, 2:17 PM
luc4 edited the summary of this revision. (Show Details)
luc4 added a reviewer: davidedmundson.
luc4 edited the summary of this revision. (Show Details)
luc4 retitled this revision from Add support for newer linux kernel power_supply API. Keep backwardcompatibility with older procfs API. to Add support for newer linux kernel power_supply API.May 19 2019, 11:46 AM
meven added a subscriber: meven.Jun 10 2019, 7:45 PM

Friendly ping to our dear reviewers @broulik @davidedmundson @hein

meven added a comment.Sep 9 2019, 9:28 AM

Thank you @luc4 for pinging again

I have tested it, it works nicely, apparently the code you are replacing has not been working for a while.

The code looks good to me.

I would be great to have a second opinion though from more .

alexde added a subscriber: alexde.Jan 3 2020, 11:24 AM

This patch looks pretty similar to the already merged one https://phabricator.kde.org/D25018. How are they related?

luc4 added a comment.Jan 3 2020, 11:30 AM

Probably the consequence of not reviewing changes? This one can probably be abandoned.

In D21273#586877, @luc4 wrote:

Probably the consequence of not reviewing changes? This one can probably be abandoned.

What a shame! As you are familiar with the code, you could probably review the other patch too and see if it there's space for improvements, which probably your patch already coveres. :)

luc4 added a comment.Jan 3 2020, 11:46 AM

I don't see why, it was proposed after mine and it is already merged... Does not seem to need a review.
Thanks for answering though.

luc4 abandoned this revision.Jan 3 2020, 11:46 AM