From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754885Ab1DFQPj (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Apr 2011 12:15:39 -0400 Received: from imr4.ericy.com ([198.24.6.8]:59560 "EHLO imr4.ericy.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753358Ab1DFQPi (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Apr 2011 12:15:38 -0400 Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 09:14:45 -0700 From: Guenter Roeck To: Jean Delvare CC: Andreas Herrmann , Thomas Renninger , "lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] hwmon: Add driver for AMD family 15h processor power information Message-ID: <20110406161445.GB25724@ericsson.com> References: <20110404160733.GA11818@alberich.amd.com> <20110405144536.GA5054@alberich.amd.com> <20110406161401.1c0ab6de@endymion.delvare> <20110406151901.GE2177@alberich.amd.com> <20110406173543.7308ba93@endymion.delvare> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110406173543.7308ba93@endymion.delvare> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 11:35:43AM -0400, Jean Delvare wrote: > On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 17:19:01 +0200, Andreas Herrmann wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 04:14:01PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > > > On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 16:45:36 +0200, Andreas Herrmann wrote: > > > > +static ssize_t show_power(struct device *dev, > > > > + struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf) > > > > +{ > > > > + u32 val, btdp, tdpl, tdp2w, arange; > > > > + s32 acap; > > > > + u64 ctdp; > > > > > > These variable names aren't easy to understand. > > > > Just random names which eventually map to the spec: > > > > btdp - base_tdp > > tdpl - tdp_limit > > tdp2w - tdp_to_watt > > acap - average_accumulator_capture (or even worse how about "processor_tdp_running_average_accumulator":( > > arange - average_range > > avg_cap and avg_range would do, respectively, for the last two. > > > I don't think that changing the names make it much easier to > > reconstruct the calculation but if you insist in changing it I'll > > adapt it. > > I do prefer the "extended" names, really. Sure, this doesn't change the > calculations, but it helps the reader understand what's going on. Which > will be useful if one ever has to fix a bug in the code or extend it > for a different CPU family. > > But maybe this is just me. Guenter, do you have an opinion? > I agree. base_tdp is definitely much better than btdp. Same for the others. Thanks, Guenter