The following reply was made to PR bin/36458; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: yamt@mwd.biglobe.ne.jp (YAMAMOTO Takashi)
To: juan@xtrarom.org
Cc: gnats-bugs@NetBSD.org, woods@planix.com
Subject: Re: bin/36458 ("envstat -r" doesn't show what "envstat" shows)
Date: Thu,  5 Jul 2007 20:46:53 +0900 (JST)

 > On Thu,  5 Jul 2007 10:50:02 +0000 (UTC)
 > yamt@mwd.biglobe.ne.jp (YAMAMOTO Takashi) wrote:
 > 
 > >  IMO acpiacad (and other drivers) should stop pretending to have
 > >  pseudo "reversed" sensors and envstat should just show one of
 > >  
 > >  	acpiacad0 connected: ON
 > >  
 > >  or
 > >  
 > >  	acpiacad0 connected: OFF
 > >  
 > >  or
 > >  
 > >  	acpiacad0 connected: *
 > >  
 > >  ie. what greg's patch does is the way to go.
 > 
 > Ok, I've implemented this. When the AC Adapter is not connected:
 > 
 > acpiacad0 connected:        OFF
 > 
 >        acpibat0 present:         ON
 >     acpibat0 design cap:      4.000 Ah
 >  acpibat0 last full cap:      3.919 Ah
 >     acpibat0 technology:          1
 > acpibat0 design voltage:     10.800 V
 >       acpibat0 warn cap:      0.234 Ah ( 5.97%)
 >        acpibat0 low cap:      0.136 Ah ( 3.47%)
 >        acpibat0 voltage:     10.920 V
 >    acpibat0 charge rate:        N/A
 > acpibat0 discharge rate:      0.000 A
 >         acpibat0 charge:      0.796 Ah (20.31%) critical ( 2.50%)
 >       acpibat0 charging:        OFF
 > 
 > And when it's connected:
 > 
 > acpiacad0 connected:         ON
 > 
 >        acpibat0 present:         ON
 
 why the indent is broken?
 
 >     acpibat0 design cap:      4.000 Ah
 >  acpibat0 last full cap:      3.919 Ah
 >     acpibat0 technology:          1
 > acpibat0 design voltage:     10.800 V
 >       acpibat0 warn cap:      0.234 Ah ( 5.97%)
 >        acpibat0 low cap:      0.136 Ah ( 3.47%)
 >        acpibat0 voltage:     11.606 V
 >    acpibat0 charge rate:      0.000 A
 > acpibat0 discharge rate:        N/A
 >         acpibat0 charge:      0.797 Ah (20.34%) critical ( 2.50%)
 >       acpibat0 charging:         ON
 > 
 > I used "ON/OFF" only for Indicators,
 
 i think true/false is likely more appropriate than on/off,
 although i'm not sure if it's worth to change.
 othewise, it seems reasonable to me.
 
 > do you want it for all sensors?
 
 can you explain?
 i can't imagine how others can be represented by "ON/OFF".
 
 > Quentin suggested to use "N/A" when it's invalid.
 
 it seems reasonable to me.
 
 YAMAMOTO Takashi