[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160614155835.GA29820@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 17:58:35 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
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
* Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> 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'.
Yeah, indeed - so pwr it is?
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists