From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kevin Hilman Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] OMAP3 PM Add C0 state Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:24:24 -0800 Message-ID: <87ljrx9fl3.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> References: <1234974118-27446-1-git-send-email-peter.de-schrijver@nokia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com ([209.85.198.225]:30347 "EHLO rv-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756814AbZBWSY3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Feb 2009 13:24:29 -0500 Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id g37so2043918rvb.1 for ; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:24:27 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <1234974118-27446-1-git-send-email-peter.de-schrijver@nokia.com> (Peter De Schrijver's message of "Wed\, 18 Feb 2009 18\:21\:57 +0200") Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Peter 'p2' De Schrijver Cc: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org "Peter 'p2' De Schrijver" writes: > This patch introduces a new C state C0 which keeps both core and mpu > powerdomains in ON state. This gives us low latency at a cost of higher > power consumption. > I don't like the name 'C0' for an idle-state. In ACPI terms, C0 is an active state, not an idle state. I know this is not an ACPI system, but since we're using ACPI names, we should be consistent. Is there a real benefit to having an additional state here? Shouldn't we just make these changes or C1? Also, for a single patch, can you include the description in the patch itself instead of the 'PATCH 0/1'. Thanks. Kevin