From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: khilman@kernel.org (Kevin Hilman) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 11:41:19 -0700 Subject: [PATCH v7 5/7] qcom: cpuidle: Add cpuidle driver for QCOM cpus In-Reply-To: (Nicolas Pitre's message of "Tue, 30 Sep 2014 14:30:07 -0400 (EDT)") References: <1411779495-39724-1-git-send-email-lina.iyer@linaro.org> <1411779495-39724-6-git-send-email-lina.iyer@linaro.org> <20140929153154.GF2165@e102568-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <7hmw9hypj9.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> Message-ID: <7h8ul1x86o.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Nicolas Pitre writes: > On Tue, 30 Sep 2014, Kevin Hilman wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Nicolas Pitre >> wrote: >> > On Tue, 30 Sep 2014, Kevin Hilman wrote: >> > >> >> Lorenzo Pieralisi writes: [...] >> >> > This may be misleading. Call it PlatformWFI or something like that, not WFI if >> >> > that's not what it is. >> >> >> >> This gets at a little pet peeve of mine: >> >> >> >> IMO, naming any state with "WFI" is a bit confusing, because typically >> >> *every* idle state is entered by one (or more) CPU executing WFI, no? >> > >> > Agreed. >> > >> > The only state called "WFI" should be the one that only executes the WFI >> > instruction without any other hardware setup around it. >> >> Well, I would go even further in that none of the states should be >> called WFI, because WFI is used to enter all of them. > > Fair enough. > > So let's fix this by finding a name for that state that consists of only > executing WFI and that every SOC has. > > Suggestions? The DT idle-states binding doc (though seemingly written more with arm64 and SBSA in mind) uses "standby" for the shallowest idle. Kevin