From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758154AbYCaVBq (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:01:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756812AbYCaVBi (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:01:38 -0400 Received: from e2.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.142]:44942 "EHLO e2.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755427AbYCaVBh (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:01:37 -0400 Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:01:35 -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: <20080331210135.GC7183@tree.beaverton.ibm.com> References: <20080328213646.GC7191@tree.beaverton.ibm.com> <20080329145603.7e47418f@hyperion.delvare> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080329145603.7e47418f@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 On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 02:56:03PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote: > > +energy[1-*]_input Instantaneous energy use > > This doesn't make sense to me. Energy is a quantity, it exists > independently of time. An "instantaneous energy use" only makes sense > if you tell in what (presumably very small) amount of time the energy > was used... and then what you are measuring is not an energy but a > power, for which we already have an interface. Please clarify. Wes Felter suggested "Cumulative energy use", and I'll go with that. > > +power[1-*]_interval Power use averaging interval > > Wouldn't power[1-*]_average_interval be clearer? Given that power is energy used over a period of time, I wonder if it might be more accurate to remove powerX_input and leave this name alone. That said, it does seem to be the case that interval names take the format "${sensorfile}_interval", so I suppose it makes more sense the way that you suggest. > > + Unit: milliseconds > > Nitpicking for consistency: millisecond (no trailing s). > > What values do you expect for this entry? I am wondering if it's safe > to use millisecond as a unit. Is it unlikely that a future chip will > support averaging intervals below the millisecond? It's possible that a future chip could do this, though today we only support intervals in the hundreds of milliseconds. The default for the ibmaem driver is currently 1s. --D