[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1515675277.7000.917.camel@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 14:54:37 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Platform Driver <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>,
Valentin Manea <valy@....ro>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ACPI / PM: Use Low Power S0 Idle on more systems
On Wed, 2018-01-10 at 23:25 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 2:24 PM, Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2018-01-10 at 13:26 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > Just a nitpick: Can we leave S2IDLE instead of S2I?
> > Would it make sense for potential code readers?
>
> I wanted it to be shorter, but if that is a problem, I'd rather call
> it PLATFORM than S2IDLE (as technically they are related to the
> low-power mode of the platform).
It's not problem per se, though without a context it would take time to
get into S2I acronym from the code for not familiar reader.
> I'll send an update shortly.
Thanks!
--
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists