On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 12:33:03PM -0700, Srinivas Pandruvada wrote: > >> +Example Sys-FS Interface > >> + > >> +/sys/class/power_cap/intel-rapl > >> +├── package-0 > >> +│ ├── constraint-0 > >> +│ │ ├── name > >> +│ │ ├── power_limit_uw > >> +│ │ └── time_window_us > >> +│ ├── constraint-1 > >> +│ │ ├── name > >> +│ │ ├── power_limit_uw > >> +│ │ └── time_window_us > >> +│ ├── core > >> +│ │ ├── constraint-0 > >> +│ │ │ ├── name > >> +│ │ │ ├── power_limit_uw > >> +│ │ │ └── time_window_us > >> +│ │ ├── energy_uj > >> +│ │ └── max_energy_range_uj > >> +│ ├── dram > >> +│ │ ├── constraint-0 > >> +│ │ │ ├── name > >> +│ │ │ ├── power_limit_uw > >> +│ │ │ └── time_window_us > >> +│ │ ├── energy_uj > >> +│ │ └── max_energy_range_uj > >> +│ ├── energy_uj > >> +│ ├── max_energy_range_uj > >> +│ └── max_power_range_uw > >> +├── package-1 > >> +│ ├── constraint-0 > >> +│ │ ├── name > >> +│ │ ├── power_limit_uw > >> +│ │ └── time_window_us > >> +│ ├── constraint-1 > >> +│ │ ├── name > >> +│ │ ├── power_limit_uw > >> +│ │ └── time_window_us > >> +│ ├── core > >> +│ │ ├── constraint-0 > >> +│ │ │ ├── name > >> +│ │ │ ├── power_limit_uw > >> +│ │ │ └── time_window_us > >> +│ │ ├── energy_uj > >> +│ │ └── max_energy_range_uj > >> +│ ├── dram > >> +│ │ ├── constraint-0 > >> +│ │ │ ├── name > >> +│ │ │ ├── power_limit_uw > >> +│ │ │ └── time_window_us > >> +│ │ ├── energy_uj > >> +│ │ └── max_energy_range_uj > >> +│ ├── energy_uj > >> +│ ├── max_energy_range_uj > >> +│ └── max_power_range_uw > >> +├── power > >> +│ ├── async > >> +│ ├── autosuspend_delay_ms > >> +│ ├── control > >> +│ ├── runtime_active_kids > >> +│ ├── runtime_active_time > >> +│ ├── runtime_enabled > >> +│ ├── runtime_status > >> +│ ├── runtime_suspended_time > >> +│ └── runtime_usage > >> +├── subsystem -> ../../../../class/power_cap > >> +└── uevent > > Ick. Rewrite this to use a bus and you should be fine, right? Don't > > use a class, a class is only to be used if you have a device that is a > > specific "type of thing". Like a tty device, it is a class, as lots of > > different "real" devices can have tty ports on them (usb, pci, pcmcia, > > platform, etc.) > > > > Rethink this using a bus and see if that solves your issues. You get a > > hierarchy with that. And you can have different "types" of devices on > > your bus, making it easy to tell the difference between a "package" and > > a "constraint". > > > > Does that help? > I will experiment your suggestion. I see this class analogous to > "/sys/class/thermal", > , where the thermal class provides a set of consistent interface for all > thermal devices.
But thermal devices are not "real" at all. There are just a number of "cooling devices" on a virtual bus and not attached to any type of a real device at all. There's also no hierarchy that I can see with the thermal class, but you want to have this, so you will have to do something different because classes do not have hierarchies. So try using a device and a bus and see if that helps out. If not, please let me know. thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
