linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] x86/platform/intel-mid: Add Power Management Unit driver

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: <1465920434.30123.87.camel@linux.intel.com>
Date:	Tue, 14 Jun 2016 19:07:14 +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 17:58 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * 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?

Yes. Will rename in this way, re-test and re-send.

-- 

Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy