linux-kernel - Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH] opp: introduce library for device-specific OPPs

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4C93EB1A.7020203@ti.com>
Date:	Fri, 17 Sep 2010 17:26:34 -0500
From:	Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
CC:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
	linux-arm <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Phil Carmody <ext-phil.2.carmody@...ia.com>,
	linux-doc <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
	"Chikkature Rajashekar, Madhusudhan" <madhu.cr@...com>,
	"Aguirre, Sergio" <saaguirre@...com>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
	linux-pm <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com>,
	Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
	Eduardo Valentin <eduardo.valentin@...ia.com>,
	linux-omap <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Gopinath, Thara" <thara@...com>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...ricsson.com>,
	"Granados Dorado, Roberto" <x0095451@...com>,
	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
	Romit Dasgupta <ro.mit@...com>,
	Tero Kristo <Tero.Kristo@...ia.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Premi, Sanjeev" <premi@...com>
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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/