Mark.Haywood wrote: >> >> Hmm..., the new infrastureture looks much better. >> It looks like I have to re-write c-state driver. >> Which ON revisition/gate is this based on? >> > > I sort of continued some of the restructuring that I'd started in the > cpupm-gate repository, so it should be pretty easy to merge the that > repository when the time comes. I wouldn't bother rewriting anything > until we integrate. At that point, I can probably merge the repository > if you like. If I did the restructuring r > > Our current T-state work is based off of onnv_91 at the moment. > > Yeah, I'd like to make c-state driver to match the new infrastructure.
>> >>> 3) Monitoring >>> >>> One area that we have not addressed is monitoring. We're >>> not aware of >>> T-state monitoring capabilities in other operating systems, >>> but think >>> it might be a reasonable thing to provide. We're wondering >>> if PowerTOP >>> might be modified to report on T-states? We'd appreciate >>> any thoughts >>> that the folks working on PowerTOP might have on that front. >>> >>> >> >> We definitely can add T-state support in PowerTOP. >> Please don't forget to add proper dtrace probes in the T-state >> driver as well as kstat info. >> >> > I figure we'll need a probe for the current T-state. Do we > need one for > the list of supported T-states as well? I think so. we need to catch the transition, and we also need to know the current status. Thanks, -Aubrey
