From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1754447AbeAKNFp (ORCPT <rfc822;ralf@linux-mips.org> + 1 other);
        Thu, 11 Jan 2018 08:05:45 -0500
Received: from mga07.intel.com ([134.134.136.100]:35391 "EHLO mga07.intel.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S933515AbeAKNFn (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 11 Jan 2018 08:05:43 -0500
X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message)
X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.46,344,1511856000"; 
   d="scan'208";a="9322885"
Message-ID: <1515675277.7000.917.camel@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ACPI / PM: Use Low Power S0 Idle on more systems
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
        Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Platform Driver <platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org>,
        Valentin Manea <valy@mrs.ro>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 14:54:37 +0200
In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0gg8Pn8AU8auPMT+DYVoUK6TmsRUfK+E8RWfThbLPQ+PQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4046497.JI7UjL75gC@aspire.rjw.lan>
         <12541194.33112yYDjW@aspire.rjw.lan>
         <1515590661.7000.855.camel@linux.intel.com>
         <CAJZ5v0gg8Pn8AU8auPMT+DYVoUK6TmsRUfK+E8RWfThbLPQ+PQ@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.26.3-1 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>

On Wed, 2018-01-10 at 23:25 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 2:24 PM, Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2018-01-10 at 13:26 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

> > Just a nitpick: Can we leave S2IDLE instead of S2I?
> > Would it make sense for potential code readers?
> 
> I wanted it to be shorter, but if that is a problem, I'd rather call
> it PLATFORM than S2IDLE (as technically they are related to the
> low-power mode of the platform).

It's not problem per se, though without a context it would take time to
get into S2I acronym from the code for not familiar reader.

> I'll send an update shortly.

Thanks!

-- 
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy