From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Len Brown Subject: Re: Re: [PATCHES] add _CST support Date: 27 Dec 2004 22:27:15 -0500 Message-ID: <1104204434.18166.50.camel@d845pe> References: <20041127215118.GA30309@dominikbrodowski.de> <1103694244.17325.58.camel@d845pe> <20041223000842.GA8289@dominikbrodowski.de> <1103778133.2567.45.camel@d845pe> <20041223130723.GE731@openzaurus.ucw.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20041223130723.GE731-u08AdweFZfgxtPtxi4kahqVXKuFTiq87@public.gmane.org> Sender: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org Errors-To: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: To: Pavel Machek Cc: Dominik Brodowski , ACPI Developers , Robert Moore , Bruno Ducrot List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2004-12-23 at 08:07, Pavel Machek wrote: > > C-states are enumerated C0...Cn > > C-state types are enumerated C1, C2, C3. > > I don't see any confusion in the name-space duplicates > > as long as you know you're talking about C-states or C-state-types. > > > > Unfortunately, people often don't know what they are talking about. > Having two things called C2 is definitely going to confuse just > about everyone but you... Probably we should not mess with the "well known" (hah;-) name space for C-states themselves (C0...Cn). Types, on the other hand, would probably be well addressed with a enum whose vales are 1,2,3 so if we chose to print them out they'd simply be a %d -- using C%d only for actual C-states themselves. would that be better? ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/