On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 09:36:34AM +0800, Yanmin Zhang wrote: > On Mon, 2012-03-12 at 12:29 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 06:11:51PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 06:39:35AM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > > > > > > Do you know of any tools using these files? I have never heard of them, > > > > and I was told we should move these files years ago. So I don't think > > > > there should be any api issues. > > > > > > powertop uses them. > > > > Ok, then we can't move them all. > > > > We should then just move the ones that have multiple lines, as I'm > > pretty sure powertop doesn't use them, right? > All sys files under cpu/cpuXXX/cpuidle have single line. If we move > some files to debugfs and keep others under sysfs, users might be confused. > > Should we go back to the 1st version which just adds the new entry to > sysfs? Wait, I thought this whole thing started when we wanted to move the files that had multiple lines out of sysfs? If none of these do, and they all are being used by tools already, then fine, they should stay. But for some reason, I thought there was a problem here. Perhaps that was in the cpufreq code? confused, greg k-h _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
