Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH] opp: introduce library for device-specificOPPs

[Nishanth Menon]

Rafael J. Wysocki had written, on 09/17/2010 05:22 PM, the following:
> On Friday, September 17, 2010, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> > Mark Brown had written, on 09/17/2010 10:36 AM, the following:
> > > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 08:29:33PM -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> > >
> > > > +struct opp_def {
> > > > +	unsigned long freq;
> > > > +	unsigned long u_volt;
> > > > +
> > > > +	bool enabled;
> > > > +};
> > > It might be clearer to use some term other than enabled in the code -
> > > when reading I wasn't immediately sure if enabled meant that it was
> > > available to be selected or if it was the active operating point.  How
> > > about 'allowed' (though I'm not 100% happy with that)?
> > ;).. The opp is enabled or disabled if it is populated, it is implicit 
> > as being available but not enabled- how about active? this would change 
> > the opp_enable/disable functions to opp_activate, opp_deactivate..
>
> Would that mean that "active" is the one currently in use?

I like the idea Phil pointed out[1] on using "available" instead.. 
opp_enable and disable will make the OPP available or not. does this 
sound better?

[1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-arm-kernel&m=128474217132058&w=2
--
Regards,
Nishanth Menon
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/