[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1465919118.30123.73.camel@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 18:45:18 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
David Cohen <david.a.cohen@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] x86/platform/intel-mid: Add Power Management
Unit driver
On Tue, 2016-06-14 at 17:29 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2016-06-14 at 12:43 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > In the TRM it's called Power Management Unit, though once or twice
> > in some
> > documents as Power Management Controller. I actually woudn't like to
> > use PMC
> > abbreviation to not be confused with pmc_atom.c and many other
> > variation of
> > existing PMC drivers of other Intel platforms.
> >
> > PM* as a prefix might be too short to conflict with Power Management
> > framework
> > in the kernel. P-Unit (punit*) is existing part in SoC which will
> > have its own
> > driver in the future, so, can't use it either.
> >
> > pwr*, pwrmu*, scpmu* (as of South Complex Power Management Unit) —
> > one of them?
>
> 'pwr' certainly sounds good to me! PWMU perhaps?
Wouldn't be a bit confusing with pwm? I would stay at 'pwr'.
P.S. I have sent an indentation fix as a separate patch.
--
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists