From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Message-ID: <1465926480.30123.92.camel@linux.intel.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] x86/platform/intel-mid: Add Power Management Unit driver From: Andy Shevchenko To: David Cohen Cc: Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , x86@kernel.org, Bjorn Helgaas , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, Mika Westerberg , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 20:48:00 +0300 In-Reply-To: <20160614173743.GB16566@psi-dev26.jf.intel.com> References: <1465849087-54528-1-git-send-email-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> <1465919118.30123.73.camel@linux.intel.com> <20160614155835.GA29820@gmail.com> <1465920434.30123.87.camel@linux.intel.com> <20160614172621.GA16566@psi-dev26.jf.intel.com> <20160614173743.GB16566@psi-dev26.jf.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 2016-06-14 at 10:37 -0700, David Cohen wrote: > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 10:26:21AM -0700, David Cohen wrote: > > Hi, > > > >  > > > > > > > pwr*, pwrmu*, scpmu* (as of South Complex Power Management > > > > > > > Unit) > > > > > > > — > > > > > > > one of them? > > > > > > > > > > > > 'pwr' certainly sounds good to me! PWMU perhaps? > > > > > > > > > > Wouldn't be a bit confusing with pwm? I would stay at 'pwr'. ^^^ (1) > > > > > > > > Yeah, indeed - so pwr it is? > > > > > > Yes. Will rename in this way, re-test and re-send. > > > > I'm curious about that. What pmu prefix would stand for? > > Nevermind :) > I'd vote for pwmu, as it would make more sense WRT the hw > documentation. What about (1)? Currently I renamed everything to pwr and it looks good. -- Andy Shevchenko Intel Finland Oy