On Wed, 2024-11-27 at 10:47 -0500, John Kacur wrote: > > On Tue, 26 Nov 2024, Crystal Wood wrote: > > > On Tue, 2024-11-26 at 17:29 -0500, John Kacur wrote: > > > > > I don't think we want to have a warning when the software is doing what we > > > request of it. > > > Can we either just move the logic out of this function into main and > > > call either set_latency_target or the deepest latency state logic as > > > appropriate, or move all the power management logic into a new function? > > > > This could be said about the laptop and power_management checks too... > > true > > > I'd go with verbose info prints rather than warnings for all three, if > > anything. > > Note that verbose on cyclictest doesn't mean print extra warnings, it > means output values on stdout for statistics. That's what the help says, but it's already used to gate other things that don't seem to be related, at least at first glance... > > > > > I'm not sure how cluttering up main() with more logic would help, but > > turning set_latency_target() into something like > > setup_power()/cleanup_power() sounds good. > > > > > Sure, that's why I gave two options, however, there is already > --deepest-idle-state logic in main(), how much more clutter does it add to > not call set_latency_target() if we're using --deepest-idle-state? I meant moving the deepest idle stuff out of main() and into setup_power()/cleanup_power(). In other words, I was agreeing with your second option. -Crystal
