On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 7:30 AM, Christian König <deathsimple@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 04.06.2012 10:44, Lauri Kasanen wrote: >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 12:54:30 +0200 >> Christian König<deathsimple@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>>> This moves the pm_info file from debugfs to next to the other two power >>>> files. >>>> >>>> Requested by several users at Phoronix. >>>> >>>> PS: Please CC me. Also please be gentle, it's my first step in >>>> kernel-land ;) >>> >>> Hui? What should this be good for? >>> >>> Sysfs files are for setting driver parameters, like the power management >>> method or profile currently in use. One major advantage of sysfs is the >>> strict rules for a permanent and machine usable interface, for example >>> it is mandatory to only specify one parameter per sysfs file. >>> >>> Debugfs on the other hand should be used for human readable >>> informations, e.g. the printing the current clocks in a human readable >>> form. Also you don't need a debug build or turn on any other debugging >>> facility to get those information, just take a look under >>> "sys/kernel/debug/dri/*". >> >> I have no such dir, /sys/kernel/debug. The fact you have it means you have >> CONFIG_DEBUGFS enabled and mounted. >> >>> So the code is actually quite valid as it is. >> >> First, the current location is illogical, and several users have >> complained about it. This info should be right next to where it is tweaked, >> ie right next to power_profile and power_method. That is where it's expected >> to be by users. >> >> Secondly, checking the clocks is absolutely not a debug operation. >> Therefore requiring a debug option (CONFIG_DEBUGFS) to see this info is >> plain wrong.. This info needs to be available to all users, including those >> on production kernels without such debug options. >> >> >> -- >> >> So the issue is the location of the info, not the format. I'd be more than >> happy to split it into six files (default_core_clock, current_core_clock...) >> that each offer just a kHz number, just like the cpufreq scaling_cur_freq >> do. Would that be preferable? > > Yeah, that sounds like a start, and also only register those files if the > clock in question is really available, e. g. integrated chipsets doesn't > have a memory clock for example. > > But I have my doubts that it would be accepted easily, cause for debugfs we > can pretty much pump every information in there we want, while sysfs files > must maintain a more or less stable API for setting system parameters, see > Documentation/sysfs-rules.txt. That's my main concern. I don't want maintain the current debug interface as a stable one, that's why it's in debugfs. Alex > > Christian. > > _______________________________________________ > dri-devel mailing list > dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
