On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 11:35:43AM -0400, Jean Delvare wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 17:19:01 +0200, Andreas Herrmann wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 04:14:01PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > > On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 16:45:36 +0200, Andreas Herrmann wrote:
> > > > +static ssize_t show_power(struct device *dev,
> > > > + struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf)
> > > > +{
> > > > + u32 val, btdp, tdpl, tdp2w, arange;
> > > > + s32 acap;
> > > > + u64 ctdp;
> > >
> > > These variable names aren't easy to understand.
> >
> > Just random names which eventually map to the spec:
> >
> > btdp - base_tdp
> > tdpl - tdp_limit
> > tdp2w - tdp_to_watt
> > acap - average_accumulator_capture (or even worse how about "processor_tdp_running_average_accumulator":(
> > arange - average_range
>
> avg_cap and avg_range would do, respectively, for the last two.
>
> > I don't think that changing the names make it much easier to
> > reconstruct the calculation but if you insist in changing it I'll
> > adapt it.
>
> I do prefer the "extended" names, really. Sure, this doesn't change the
> calculations, but it helps the reader understand what's going on. Which
> will be useful if one ever has to fix a bug in the code or extend it
> for a different CPU family.
>
> But maybe this is just me. Guenter, do you have an opinion?
>
I agree. base_tdp is definitely much better than btdp. Same for the others.
Thanks,
Guenter
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
