[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#601345: linux-image-2.6.32: wrong battery charge level

On Mon, 2010-10-25 at 13:47 +0200, Oz Nahum Tiram wrote:
> Package: linux-2.6
> Version: 2.6.32-26
> File: linux-image-2.6.32
> Severity: important
> *** Please type your report below this line ***
> Hi, 
> I have a laptop which came installed with Ubuntu 9.10. I decided to
> install Debian on it. I have found that on kernels >2.6.31 the power
> manager indicated the wrong charge level. Even though the battery is
> FULLY charged, the battery indicator says it has only ~20%. 
> If I installed older kernels from snapshot.debian.org I didn't have
> that problem (However font smoothing with older kernel is
> horrible...).
> I have seen similar bug reports in Ubuntu, but I wish this bug is
> handled also in Debian. 
> My laptop battery info is:
> Vendor: CZCTech
> Model: U13
> Serial Number: SN0000
> info from lshw:
>  description: Notebook
>     product: czc
>     vendor: BRUNEN IT Group
>     version: 1.0
> *-battery
>        description: Nickel Cadmium Battery
>        product: Nikon Ultra Plus
>        vendor: Nikon Battery
>        physical id: 1
>        version: 08/11/97
>        serial: NI00123
>        slot: Left side of System

This information reported by lshw comes from the BIOS and the battery,
and it is complete nonsense!  I expect that the BIOS is providing
similarly bogus information about the charge state.  But I don't know
why the ACPI battery driver would have changed the way it interprets

> See thread here for example:
> http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1543467&page=2

This could be a similar problem, though no-one seems to specifically say
that this bug was introduced between Ubuntu 9.10 and 10.04 (i.e. between
Linux 2.6.31 and 2.6.32).

> and 
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/linux/+bug/218094

That bug report is specifically about the msi-laptop driver, and was
made in 2008.


Ben Hutchings
Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.

Reply to: