In-Reply-To: <20061109231533.GE2616@elf.ucw.cz>
References: <20061108175412.3c2be30c.holzheu@de.ibm.com> <20061109231533.GE2616@elf.ucw.cz>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <6F3F24CD-2893-43E2-A006-F809E35607AE@mac.com>
Cc: Michael Holzheu <holzheu@de.ibm.com>, Ingo Oeser <ioe-lkml@rameria.de>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mschwid2@de.ibm.com
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@mac.com>
Subject: Re: How to document dimension units for virtual files?
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 08:18:31 -0500
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1083
Lines: 24

On Nov 09, 2006, at 18:15:33, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Anyway, Greg's opinion was that we should just document units in  
> documentation and not pollute names with that. I'm not sure if it  
> works for battery (because of current:mA vs. current:mW confusion).

Well, IMO you should never have "current:mW" in any form whatsoever  
anyways.  Electrically it makes no sense; it's like saying  
"height:grams".  Watts are an indication of power emitted or consumed  
per unit time (as opposed to current/amperage which counts only the  
number of electrons and not the change in energy), so perhaps  
"power_flow:mW" or "power_consumption:mW" would make more sense?

I can conceivably see a need for a "current:mJ_per_s" versus  
"current:mW" depending on the hardware-reported units, but never both  
at the same time.

Cheers,
Kyle Moffett

-
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/