Bill.Holler wrote: > 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
Yeah, thanks, I'll change the code and follow the convention. -Aubrey
