From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Brown Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] PM: Introduce generic DVFS framework with device-specific OPPs Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 14:36:37 +0100 Message-ID: <20110427133637.GA25850@sirena.org.uk> References: <1303807401-16350-1-git-send-email-myungjoo.ham@samsung.com> <20110426132224.GC13597@suse.de> <20110426205430.GA20381@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110426205430.GA20381@suse.de> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Greg KH Cc: Nishanth Menon , Len Brown , Kevin Hilman , Kyungmin Park , MyungJoo Ham , linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 01:54:30PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 10:45:18PM +0800, Jiejing.Zhang wrote: > > I think DVFS here means ???Dynamic voltage and frequency scaling???,?? refering the > > first google's result: > Ok, if so, please spell it out. > Also, don't use 'dvfs' as a prefix in the kernel, too many other people > will think it is a filesystem. How about "dynvolt"? > Or anything else, just no 'fs' in the name otherwise confusion will > reign. This really is the standard technical term for this, it's vanishingly rare for it to be a source of confusion in context. We should at least mention the actual term in the documentation even if we invent our own name for it.