On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 5:53 PM, Chris Wilson <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 08:32:59 -0700, Jesse Barnes <[email protected]> > wrote: >> On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:38:25 +0200 >> Daniel Vetter <[email protected]> wrote: >> > And from the bikeshed departement: Can't we just print a running number? I >> > know, substraction is bloody hard, but for anything else than total power >> > consumption (e.g. graphing power over time) the running thing is imo >> > simpler. We've had the same discussion for the rc6 sysfs residency timers >> > and concluded (after Arjan yelled at us) that doing the substraction in >> > userspace is better, least it allows multiple userspace tools to read >> > this. >> > >> >> Yeah that's a good point; this way happened to be simpler for what I >> was doing, but just exposing the cooked register value (converted to >> ujoules) is better. Will fix. > > And to keep it easy to parse, just make it return -ENODEV on older > platforms and a simple number for gen6+.
At that point you might also add the uJ suffix and move it to sysfs ;-) -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter [email protected] - +41 (0) 79 364 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
