Hi Pat, Please post the plain text format thread on the mailing list.
Pat Bredenberg wrote: >Hi folks, > I took a few minutes to just play with powertop and had a couple of comments/suggestions for general consumption. > I conferred briefly with Eric ahead of this email but we figured this would be good to pick up some other ideas if they exist. > First, I noticed that the "(frequencies)" string in the header bleeds over from the column with which it is associated > to the interval column. This is confusing as it looks like the interval column's header is actually "frequencies." I suggest >either omit "frequencies" altogether or significantly abbreviate it to avoid this confusion. Thanks to point this style out. How about change P-states (frequencies) 2000MHz 100% To P-states (frequencies) 2000MHz 100% ? >Further, it might not be a bad idea >to put "interval" or something more appropriate over the interval column. Good suggestion, let's try to find if something useful can be added, like cpu utilization... > Second, would it be worthwhile to put some kind of vertical divider between the c-state and p-state information at the >top of the powertop output? I believe it would be because the two concepts are distinct and the lack of a divider in the >output can be misleading and cause the user to incorrectly assume they are related. I put myself in the that category >because I'm still in the early stages of learning this stuff. Of course, like I told Eric, we don't let people do brain surgery >without going to medical school, so maybe the second point is overkill. Actually C-state and P-state information are related. If the processor keeps in C0, the frequency should be at the highest speed. So here, I don't think some kind of vertical divider is necessary. Thanks, -Aubrey
