On 10/25/2010 8:48 AM, Thomas Renninger wrote:
On Monday 25 October 2010 16:56:04 Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Arjan van de Ven<ar...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
On 10/25/2010 7:36 AM, Thomas Renninger wrote:
ok so we have
"C0 idle"
Ideally this should not be called C0, but expressed
as (#define) POLL_IDLE wherever possible.
In all documentations/specs/white papers about other OSes
C0 is refered to as not being idle.
Linux mis-uses it as a self-defined idle state which
is really confusing.
sure naming is one thing
and
"C0 no longer idle"
I'd propose using the number 0 for the first one (it makes the most
logical sense, it's the least deep idle state etc etc)
I would use a special number for the "Linux only" state.
that special number is 0 though..
it makes sense in ordering, 0 < 1, 1 < 2 etc
0 makes for a really bad special number for the exit marker; not just here,
but also for your suspend hook, that one definitely needs to change
(since current commercially available SOCs already reuse 0 for this for
standby level states)
--
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
