From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Brown Subject: Re: Request for DIscussion: Cpufreq logging, and frequency floors Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 12:48:03 +0100 Message-ID: <20111023114802.GA15272@sirena.org.uk> References: <465E946FB313F242A955E3365C8D13A510491297@ushqwmb10> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <465E946FB313F242A955E3365C8D13A510491297@ushqwmb10> Sender: cpufreq-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: "Steven Finney (Palm GBU)" Cc: "cpufreq@vger.kernel.org" On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 02:31:57PM -0700, Steven Finney (Palm GBU) wrote: > 2) The ability to keep a diagnostic log of all the frequency changes so, > e.g., it's possible to determine if bad behavior (e.g. dropouts) is > correlated with a low frequency. This is a really good and useful idea but it seems to me like it would be better done with the standard trace subsystem - that provides good facilities for enabling and disabling the trace as needed and would make it easy to tie in with the other subsystems that are in play.