On Saturday, September 18, 2010, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> Rafael J. Wysocki had written, on 09/17/2010 05:22 PM, the following:
> > On Friday, September 17, 2010, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> >> Mark Brown had written, on 09/17/2010 10:36 AM, the following:
> >>> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 08:29:33PM -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> +struct opp_def {
> >>>> + unsigned long freq;
> >>>> + unsigned long u_volt;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + bool enabled;
> >>>> +};
> >>> It might be clearer to use some term other than enabled in the code -
> >>> when reading I wasn't immediately sure if enabled meant that it was
> >>> available to be selected or if it was the active operating point. How
> >>> about 'allowed' (though I'm not 100% happy with that)?
> >> ;).. The opp is enabled or disabled if it is populated, it is implicit
> >> as being available but not enabled- how about active? this would change
> >> the opp_enable/disable functions to opp_activate, opp_deactivate..
> >
> > Would that mean that "active" is the one currently in use?
>
> I like the idea Phil pointed out[1] on using "available" instead..
> opp_enable and disable will make the OPP available or not. does this
> sound better?
Yes, it does.
Rafael
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
