Plans for hal 0.5.x

Sergey Udaltsov sergey.udaltsov at
Mon Dec 13 15:42:32 PST 2004

Hi David

Generally, your answers are ok for me - just a couple of issues...

>  1. Each battery bay should have it's own separate device object of
>     capability 'battery_bay'. The hal daemon creates these objects
OK, so it is hald which creates battery_bays. Sounds non really
elegant - but I don't see another way myself...

>     given the presence of /proc/acpi/battery/BAT0, BAT1 and so forth.
>     An add-on monitors the battery status; there is a bool property
>     battery_bay.battery_present and only if this is TRUE the device
>     object has the capability 'battery' and the battery.* properties
>     as defined elsewhere.
Fair enough. This sounds perfectly ok to me. When you fork for 0.5 -
I'll try to see what's involved in the implementation.

>  2. A hal device object for the AC adaptor. Simply with capability
>     power_source, boolean property power_source.enabled
Do you really think it is necessary? If all enabled battery_bays (with
.battery_present = TRUE) have .is_charging=TRUE - it means we are on
AC, doesn't it?

hal mailing list
hal at

More information about the Hal mailing list