Jean Pihet <jean.pihet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Hi Kevin, > > On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 8:22 PM, Kevin Hilman > <khilman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hi Jean, >> >> Jean Pihet <jean.pihet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> > ... >> >>> Add the cpuidle power_start and power_end events. The state >>> parameter of power_start has the following meaning: >>> - -1: from the suspend handler (omap3_pm_suspend), >>> - 1: from the default idle handler (omap3_pm_idle), >>> - other values are the C-states from the cpuidle handler >>> (omap3_enter_idle). >> >> Are these definitions standard across other arches too? The use of >> POWER_CSTATE from supend seems less than intuitive. > Only x86 is using those events, and only for idle (values >= 0). > I have added -1 to differentiate the suspend from the regular idle but > it sems that it is not the best option. > Is a new type of power event more suited, e.g. POWER_SSTATE? If so I > will have to add it in the event definition header (in > include/trace/events/power.h) and the patch will be submitted to LKML. Yes, I think a new event is probably more appropriate, but should be discussed on LKML. Kevin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
