From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Darrick J. Wong" Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 08:47:47 +0000 Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH 1/2] Define sysfs interfaces for ibmaem Message-Id: <20080401084747.GE7183@tree.beaverton.ibm.com> List-Id: References: <20080328213646.GC7191@tree.beaverton.ibm.com> <20080329145603.7e47418f@hyperion.delvare> <20080331210135.GC7183@tree.beaverton.ibm.com> <20080401102228.712acbb5@hyperion.delvare> In-Reply-To: <20080401102228.712acbb5@hyperion.delvare> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Jean Delvare Cc: "Mark M. Hoffman" , linux-kernel , lm-sensors [Got in a car accident tonight; replies will be scarce for the next week or two.... :(] On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 10:22:28AM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > OK. Another question that comes to my mind now is the unit... Do the > chips express the value in Joules internally? I would have expected > Watt-hours. Of course we can convert as needed, but if all known chips > use the same unit then I think we should that unit too, to minimize the > required conversions. The IBM chips report some form of Joules, not Wh. > It really depends on what the chips report. Typically the drivers > should report the values from the chip without too much tinkering > (other than conversion to standard units). If some chips can report > both "instantaneous" and "average" power uses, it makes sense to have > both sets of filenames in the standard interface. If not then I am fine > getting rid of one set. Hmm, I'll think about what I want to do with this. Probably just leave them. > I don't think there is any precedent yet. I suggested this for > unambiguity rather than consistency. Ok. > Oh well, I guess that anything shorter than 1 ms can be considered > "instantaneous power use", so we can go with millisecond. Ok. > Out of curiosity, what are the values supported by the ibmaem chip? I don't know what the lower limits are; it depends on how often the BMC decides to update the counters, and that seems to vary by machine. --D _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757963AbYDAIsA (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Apr 2008 04:48:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757756AbYDAIru (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Apr 2008 04:47:50 -0400 Received: from e36.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.154]:60230 "EHLO e36.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757704AbYDAIrt (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Apr 2008 04:47:49 -0400 Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 01:47:47 -0700 From: "Darrick J. Wong" To: Jean Delvare Cc: "Mark M. Hoffman" , linux-kernel , lm-sensors Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Define sysfs interfaces for ibmaem driver Message-ID: <20080401084747.GE7183@tree.beaverton.ibm.com> References: <20080328213646.GC7191@tree.beaverton.ibm.com> <20080329145603.7e47418f@hyperion.delvare> <20080331210135.GC7183@tree.beaverton.ibm.com> <20080401102228.712acbb5@hyperion.delvare> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080401102228.712acbb5@hyperion.delvare> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15+20070412 (2007-04-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org [Got in a car accident tonight; replies will be scarce for the next week or two.... :(] On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 10:22:28AM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > OK. Another question that comes to my mind now is the unit... Do the > chips express the value in Joules internally? I would have expected > Watt-hours. Of course we can convert as needed, but if all known chips > use the same unit then I think we should that unit too, to minimize the > required conversions. The IBM chips report some form of Joules, not Wh. > It really depends on what the chips report. Typically the drivers > should report the values from the chip without too much tinkering > (other than conversion to standard units). If some chips can report > both "instantaneous" and "average" power uses, it makes sense to have > both sets of filenames in the standard interface. If not then I am fine > getting rid of one set. Hmm, I'll think about what I want to do with this. Probably just leave them. > I don't think there is any precedent yet. I suggested this for > unambiguity rather than consistency. Ok. > Oh well, I guess that anything shorter than 1 ms can be considered > "instantaneous power use", so we can go with millisecond. Ok. > Out of curiosity, what are the values supported by the ibmaem chip? I don't know what the lower limits are; it depends on how often the BMC decides to update the counters, and that seems to vary by machine. --D