On Tuesday, September 28, 2010, Jean Pihet wrote: > Hi, Hi, > Here is what I am proposing, in reply to all your comments: > > 1) rename the events to match Thomas's proposal: > power:power_cpu_cstate > power:power_cpu_pstate > power:power_cpu_sstate If that sstate thing is going to mean "suspend", then please drop it. "Suspend" is not a state, let alone a CPU state. It is a procedure by which the (entire) system is put into a sleep state (that is not confined to CPUs). > ... > > 2) introduce a new Kconfig option CONFIG_DEPRECATED_POWER_EVENTS and > conditionally map a subset of the new events to the old ones for > backward compatibility with the existing user apps. The apps should be > converted to the new API asap, > > 3) update documentation Sounds reasonable. > Other remarks here below: > > On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 8:49 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > ... > > This POWER_SSTATE thing seems to be totally artificial and omap-specific. > > > > Why do you want it to be done this way? > > > > Or is the ACPI handling added in the ACPI patch? In which case, why don't you > > put that power_switch_state(POWER_SSTATE, 1, 0, cpu) into > > kernel/power/suspend.c:suspend_enter() (and analogously for > > power_switch_state(POWER_SSTATE, 0, 0, cpu)). > The ACPI code is not using the SSTATE event. > Indeed inserting a tracepoint at > kernel/power/suspend.c:suspend_enter() is more generic. I will correct > this. OK > > Moreover, why is the cpu argument necessary for POWER_SSTATE at all? > The cpu_id parameter is present in all events prototypes. This is not > needed. I will correct this. OK Thanks, Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
