lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jul]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: driver model, duplicate names question

A: No.
Q: Should I include quotations after my reply?

http://daringfireball.net/2007/07/on_top

On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 11:54:31AM -0700, Srinivas Pandruvada wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am assigned to do add a powercap class. There are several
> technologies, which will allow to add a power budget to an individual
> device. For example, you can set a power budget to a individual
> physical cpu package, each core and uncore devices, GPUs, DRAM etc.

"classes" all reference a "device" in the system, I don't see that in
your tree below, where does that come in? How do I, as someone who
created a device in the system know to create a your new powercap class
for it?

In other words, are you _sure_ you want a class here and not something
else (i.e. a bus?)

> +The Power Capping framework organizes power capping devices under a tree structure.
> +At the root level, each device is under some "controller", which is the enabler
> +of technology. For example this can be "RAPL".
> +Under each controllers, there are multiple power zones, which can be independently
> +monitored and controlled.
> +Each power zone can be organized as a tree with parent, children and siblings.
> +Each power zone defines attributes to enable power monitoring and constraints.

Ah, this sounds like you want to be a bus, as you have a controller, and
then devices attached to it.

> +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?

greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-07-16 22:01    [W:0.110 / U:1.376 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site