From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lukas Wunner Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT][PATCH v2 0/7] Functional dependencies between devices Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2016 13:23:22 +0200 Message-ID: <20160918112322.GA2169@wunner.de> References: <27296716.H9VWo8ShOm@vostro.rjw.lan> <291f428a-da27-1c69-b0fb-c78f7a4665eb@samsung.com> <7509218.TxKN3m4AN5@vostro.rjw.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7509218.TxKN3m4AN5@vostro.rjw.lan> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Marek Szyprowski , Linux PM list , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Alan Stern , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Tomeu Vizoso , Mark Brown , Kevin Hilman , Ulf Hansson , "Luis R. Rodriguez" List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 12:41:33AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 11:58:56 AM Marek Szyprowski wrote: > > Rafael, BTW, didn't you plan to change the name of the device_link_add() > > function to device_dependency_add() to avoid confusion with network device > > "link"? > > I was concerned about the "devlink" name in particular, but I thought that > struct device_link would be distinct enough. If not, I can still change it. The "links" term has already been established, in a sense, by commit 5063ce1571b7 ("PM / Domains: Allow generic PM domains to have multiple masters"). However the genpd links introduced by that commit use a master/slave terminology, rather than supplier/consumer. Best regards, Lukas