[TESTING] SCBS: Improved battery meter system

[ndno]

Originally Posted by jonpry

I spent like an hour trying to edit the first post and it just won't commit for me. Urgh. Here is a link to the new modules.

http://prymfg.com/kernel/modules-2.6...b-dirty.tar.gz

Thanks jonpry! Wifi works like a champ now with the new modules.

[jonpry]

Ndno,

Do you have any logs generated from the new kernel and 0.4.a combination that you can run an analysis on and tell us the results, specifically the se=.

~Jon

[ndno]

Originally Posted by jonpry

Ndno,

Do you have any logs generated from the new kernel and 0.4.a combination that you can run an analysis on and tell us the results, specifically the se=.

~Jon

I will attach my latest scbs.log tomorrow; let me get one more charge/discharge cycle in before I post it for you; I'll post the values for you tomorrow. I only started the combination this morning.

[ndno]

Jon,

So I had all of yesteday and overnight to gather some more data for the scbs.log(s). Attached is a rar of the 3 scbs*.logs. I tried 3 hours today to run the analysis and it won't stop. At one point, I had it running for 90 minutes and it still didn't finish. Not sure why. I was able to do my previous analysis within 30 minutes. So I'm stuck with my previous values (which was obtained 2 days ago with the latest kernel and older SCBS (0.3.d or something like that)).

EDIT: Not sure what's going on but my TP2 keeps going to sleep after a couple minutes even when I set the display timeout to 30 minutes (so that I can run the analysis without it going to sleep). Hmmm... something's not right with my phone.

[jonpry]

Ndno,

I forgot to mention that logs created with 0.3.d are not usable with 0.4.a. I was able to run an analysis on the logs your provided. I have an ubuntu binary of scbs that runs in just a few seconds. I'm getting strange numbers for se. just using scbs.log.2 it is negative. including .4 gives .008 which is possible.

[ndno]

Originally Posted by jonpry

Ndno,

I forgot to mention that logs created with 0.3.d are not usable with 0.4.a. I was able to run an analysis on the logs your provided. I have an ubuntu binary of scbs that runs in just a few seconds. I'm getting strange numbers for se. just using scbs.log.2 it is negative. including .4 gives .008 which is possible.

OK, I'll delete my old logs and run again to get a new sample for the analysis. Should I delete my current settings (by deleting scbs.conf)?

BTW in the log files I posted, scbs.log.2 was the latest (starting from Monday morning to early Tuesday morning); I believe scbs.log.4 was from late Sunday night to Monday morning.

[jonpry]

You don't have to delete the old logs, just don't select them when running an analysis. Deleting your scbs.conf is probably not necessary either. However the existing conf is used as a starting place for the solution. It's possible to get different running times and results based on the contents of that file, but in practice the difference is pretty small. If it absolutely won't converge or something i guess deleting it is a good idea.

Here is the conf i generated from the 3 files you posted:

cc=4.065186531
cb=161.774149053
rc=0.611959660
re=0.141321335
vf=1.098000000
cf=0.312500000
lr=0.000001000
sl=-32.243861234
se=0.008442857

[ndno]

Originally Posted by jonpry

You don't have to delete the old logs, just don't select them when running an analysis. Deleting your scbs.conf is probably not necessary either. However the existing conf is used as a starting place for the solution. It's possible to get different running times and results based on the contents of that file, but in practice the difference is pretty small. If it absolutely won't converge or something i guess deleting it is a good idea.

Here is the conf i generated from the 3 files you posted:

cc=4.065186531
cb=161.774149053
rc=0.611959660
re=0.141321335
vf=1.098000000
cf=0.312500000
lr=0.000001000
sl=-32.243861234
se=0.008442857

Thanks. I'll keep the current .conf file and make note of which sbcs.log(s) that I start with. I'll post my results tomorrow night.

[steveholtam]

Sorry for the slow reply on my testing. Here is my first test:

cc=0.451819334
cb=91.461110830
rc=0.482023780
re=0.209051753
vf=1.098000000
cf=0.312500000
lr=0.000001000
sl=23.775654705
se=0.318998355

Should I use this? Does this look about right for one full cycle?

I've attached the file in case you want to view it.

[jonpry]

Steveholtam,

Your Se parameter is way out of line. From looking at your log i see that the phone was never sleeping. It will take at least a few hours of sleep data to create Se, (sleep error).