Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 17 Sep 2010 17:26:34 -0500 | From | Nishanth Menon <> | Subject | Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH] opp: introduce library for device-specific OPPs |
| |
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
| |