On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 02:56:03PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > +energy[1-*]_input Instantaneous energy use
>
> This doesn't make sense to me. Energy is a quantity, it exists
> independently of time. An "instantaneous energy use" only makes sense
> if you tell in what (presumably very small) amount of time the energy
> was used... and then what you are measuring is not an energy but a
> power, for which we already have an interface. Please clarify.
Wes Felter suggested "Cumulative energy use", and I'll go with that.
> > +power[1-*]_interval Power use averaging interval
>
> Wouldn't power[1-*]_average_interval be clearer?
Given that power is energy used over a period of time, I wonder if it
might be more accurate to remove powerX_input and leave this name alone.
That said, it does seem to be the case that interval names take the
format "${sensorfile}_interval", so I suppose it makes more sense the
way that you suggest.
> > + Unit: milliseconds
>
> Nitpicking for consistency: millisecond (no trailing s).
>
> What values do you expect for this entry? I am wondering if it's safe
> to use millisecond as a unit. Is it unlikely that a future chip will
> support averaging intervals below the millisecond?
It's possible that a future chip could do this, though today we only
support intervals in the hundreds of milliseconds. The default for the
ibmaem driver is currently 1s.
--D
