On Tue, 2012-03-13 at 12:29 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > 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? No. Liu Shuo's patch adds a new entry under cpu/cpuXXX/cpuidle and users can disable specific C state. A gentleman raised that if we should move it to debugfs, then you suggested to move all files under cpu/cpuXXX/cpuidle to debugfs. > > If none of these do, and they all are being used by tools already, then > fine, they should stay. Agree. > > But for some reason, I thought there was a problem here. Perhaps that > was in the cpufreq code? I checked cpufreq quickly. Every file has single-line, but some have multiple-fields. We would send a new patch based on sysfs as the new entry has single line. _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
