Randy Fishel wrote:
>
>> Yes, a wakeup mechanism for different idle states should be doable.
>> A wakeup_cpu_acpi() function could be the same as cpu_wakeup()
>> except it would call a poke_cpu_acpi() function instead of poke_cpu().
>> poke_cpu_acpi() would check the target cpu's idle state (C1HALT,
>> C1MWAIT, C2, C3) and perform the appropriate wakeup mechanism:
>> IPI or memory write. targetcpu->cpu_idle_type should be good enough
>> to decide wakeup mechanism.
>>
>
> I have a slight nit in the way functiosn are named. In most Solaris
> functions, the module is the first entity in a function name:
> <module>_[<component>_]<action>. So if we expect to poke the cpu via
> ACPI, then acpi is the module, cpu is the component, and poke would be
> the action: acpi_cpu_poke() (though it *could* be argued that cpu and
> acpi be reversed: cpu_acpi_poke()).
>
> Mostly this is common convention in Solaris (there is unlikely to be
> name conflicts if the module is first in a function name), and not
> always adheared, so I am not really going to comment on this any more
> than requested, but it would be good to define what naming
> convention(s) we want to use.
>
>
> Cheers!
>
>
> ---- Randy
>
> _______________________________________________
> tesla-dev mailing list
> tesla-dev at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/tesla-dev
>
Thank you Randy. We should use this naming convention!
Bill
